ML20214F875

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Intervenor Exhibit I-ROREM-285,consisting of Forwarding QA Investigation AR007388-7396 Re Pace of Facility Const Assessment Program.Related Documentation Encl
ML20214F875
Person / Time
Site: Braidwood  Constellation icon.png
Issue date: 12/04/1986
From: Steptoe P
ISHAM, LINCOLN & BEALE
To: Guild R
BUSINESS & PROFESSIONAL PEOPLE FOR THE PUBLIC INTERES
References
OL-I-ROREM-285, NUDOCS 8705260325
Download: ML20214F875 (97)
v • d • e


Text

go-qs4/4 $7 - GL f gQ @W n/ &

ISHAM, UNCOLN & BEALE .

~T~

~ $ ore" ~250 ' l COUNSELORS AT LAW

, , , , , , , , , , , , , _ *B7 PR 13 A3 33 CHICAGO,ILLDeOIS 40602 7 ,e seg L 2 5288 WILLIAM G. BEALE, 1885-1923 Qfi "' fit , 3 Cg]C;, j, 312 554-5500 SY R t150 CONNECTICUT AWENUE. N W.

SU'TE 1100 l

, VMSMINGTON. O C 20036 202 833 9730 BY MESSENGER '

    • IIE.'"'"'"'

December 1, 1986 Robert Guild, Esq.

Business and. Professional People for the Public Interest 109 North Dearborn Street Suite 1300 Chicago, Illinois 60602 Re: In the Matter of Commonwealth Edison Company (Braidwood Station, Units 1 and 2),

Docket Nos. 50-456 and 50-457

Dear Bob:

In his testimony on Wednesday, November 26, 1986, Mr. Gardner referred to a QA investigation of the pace of BCAP. The Licensing Board required Applicant to turn any report of such an investigation over to you. Here it is.

(AR007388-7396).

I am informed that the investigation arose out of a statement made by a BCAP engineer during the course of a " baseline interview" by Quality First.on January 8, 1986 (All BCAP per-sonnel were required to undergo individual baseline interviews during this time frame.) As you will see the investigation of this concern focussed exclusively on BCAP Task Force engineers, not inspectors. The CECO Assistant Manager of QA (Mr. Fitzpatrick) interviewed 61 BCAP engineers, with the results summarized in this report. Notes of those interviews do exist, but I haven't received them yet.

l Since this investigation had nothing to do with BCAP inspections it played no part in the " midpoint look" at BCAP inspection activities discussed by Dr. Kaushal. '.

l m

8705260325 861204 6 Sir cer s '

DR ADOCK 0500 s t .l y' PPS:es Philip . S, t6b ' i enc.

cc Service List without enc.

NRC Staff with enc.

( h

% BPI h;TA '

Business and Professional People for the Public Interest

( 109 North

Dearborn Street. Suite 1300 + Chicago. tilinois 60602 + Telephone:

(312) 6415570 j

'6 / 11AY 13 A6 3J December 4, 19E6 00cn -i. . e.

Mr. Herbert Grossman Mr. Richard F. Cole Mr. A Dixon Callihan .

Atomic Safety and Licensing Board N U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555

Dear Judges:

By copy of this letter I am transmitting the Intervenors exhibits identified or received during the conference calls of December 3 and 4, 1986, to the court reporter for filing in this proceeding.

I am also transmitting to the Board members copies of Intervenors' Exhibit 285: the interview summaries report on allegations of production pressure on BCAP Task Force engineers.

Sincerely, A

Robert Guild RG/sp cc: service list I

otr.c.e.. J.+es o An.. Don.,d R o.nn P.t., M e, L c, Th Ai.om.s.L, ,Noe..ot c P,c,s,on St.if HoH, O..th..,

Aa.a S..e How, o.iis J.cn A Jaft. u ,.no e

gg, p,,g De,.cros of 0.vsedo,m.at J., m.8 W shee,,

,,c. .. cots e,. aa' in A

, A. ,, S.os.n t . E o.v. Jos.ph u,.e.smn n , ,.v . Rosa..... oo <>~ ~ .a,ar-c o om., .o,..,o,. s.o.,

. .o.... ,., o, ,

u r..t A c . ,m.. . ug,=,a,A =l,~;,

..J.,.c....., ,..

,a.. . to. J, e c,,.4..

u . s., ,.,

cc.om,.. ,.

o.. ooo...

.,. ,, c..o,. ,. ;,

t..,

o.. .,.

.os..s n . . .- ,c o .. .

.. . t..,.,.

oo o .~,., .n.

.. a.4 t..

t

<.,,,,, c.c .,.,,e.,o,

,s u

....., c.

~o,,o,,

,,,,,,,.,, A s &si.af

. ~ ' ' ~ ~ '

=.*t
:::,.,, uno*::'" u::'u:a, ':c:::~~* Mt"==" '""''::

T:2:*~' ~::,;n.co:,r,~....

~ ~ ~ ' '"*==,'."'~

u.l':::.:"t,,*,:::?~'

o c:.:.s",w J.....A.,.L"=in. ,

9.;,., .fo. .... , ,,,, c ...... u_,,,

( j

$N**} ' *

-;s , .

.*(g * - i .

[^

    • y.

l BBCORDOf.COECEEE Q '/ .

il quALITT 1:1 ssCuRITr 1:1 ManacantuT I.D. u0. QF 85-67 DATE/ TIME OF CALI. OR REPORT RECEIVED OR INTERVIEW CONDUCTED: January 8. 1985 9:00 h/M RECEIVED OR INTERVIEWED BY: R.E. Benn '

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM: The quality of work may be impaired by puttina too much pressure on the personnel involved to complete their work by a certain date. To insure quality work, professionals i must dictate their own pace when it involves reviewinn detail work. '

SUPPORTINC INFORMATION SYSTEM I.D.: BUILDINC/ LOCATION:

PROCEDURE: HARDWARE / EQUIPMENT I.D.:

CONTRACTot/ Ceco: DATE/ TIME:

RECORDS: ACTIVITIES IN PROGRESS:

ADDITIOWAL INFORMATI0W:

RESPONSI8LE ORCAWIZATION: Site Quality Assurance MANAGER / SUPERINTENDENT: Tom Quaka DATE ASSIGNED SY Q.F.: 1/28/85

,,,,,,, AR0073SS

  • ~~

"'i - {JP  ;? , -

M RECORD OF COBCEEN

, ,,.{Fa432Cf3 5 .

.: W 1.D. BD. W 85-67 PERSON ASSIGNED TO DO INVESTIGATION: OId74 #Cf ADVISED Q.F.: Y I '

Date CONCERN VALIDATED: (l Yes 6l No Date: #8 BCR IFITIATED: l[l Yes l$ No WCR No.: Date:

  • RESULTS OF INVESTICATION: Date to Q.F.: E

.se e mreng .

M -> a a 1 / 1 I dM10 - U2. Gt- IE N O : @ co m vr w m 4 CeE% CumL'5 cts fwm /AncHfMhpr U t f /) L I '/

,/J

[0ltl$K RCNfMfirCY1flT((MQN1flS hWUMMR i L/ i J J l) ,l_ %,

n%%AW?/HIPb v '

fj i

\

l l

INVESTICATOR SIGNATURE: Date APPROVAL BY Q.F. OF INVESTICATION RE ORT:

SLgnature/Date THr 5 W A S A b.h erb w 'rMn e / / 4 o *J *H. / N 6 776 & 77**

Date: l[ - M * >

RESPONSE

S J G S. TO ! &VIDUAL:gAWL.*LJ % w.4aL L $ & h d > k H' W }

CLOSURE: Date: **

Approved: * * ' ~

Q;F. Project Director

  • Use additional pages Lf necessary, and attach. ,,

1/10/85 (0020Q) ARGG7389

,,..b#

h -

QF 85-67 Follow-Un Investication f [) b~9 n#-L As follow-up to concern QF 85-47 the Ceco Assista Quality Assurance interviewed sixty-one BCAP Task Foi during the period April 8, 1985 through April 16. 194 -

2-question checklist was utilized in these interviews (aftached).

Based on responses to these questions, additional pertinent -

i questions were asked to elicit full responses and mutual understanding.

All sixty-one individuals interviewed answered the first question with an unqualified "yes".

{ Fifty-one of the sixty-one interviewed (84%) answered the first

question with an unqualified "yes" jd the second question with an unqualified "no". One of these induviduals volunteered that his population was running 3 weeks behind schedule and felt that since i

hg was not being pressured, no one could be. Further questioning of these individuals indicated that they were well aware of the balance 1

they had to maintain between quality and schedule.

Seven individuals answered "no" to question 2 with qualification. All of these recognized scae pressure from a schedular standpoint or from an observation resolution standpoint, mostly in the past, but felt that there were enough checks and balances present, that people just didn't let it affect their work, i

or that help was provided when necessary to alleviate the pressure.

1 One individual added, however, that the current schedule for nechanical equipment is unrealistic and irrational; he reported he has raised this with his supervisor and gets polite but unsatisfying l response.

Three individuals did not answer "no" to question 2 but rather j answered in statement form as follows:

1

, 1) There are pressures but I don't IJt them affect me - they j

are not undue - checks and balances are sufficient to control.

' 2) There is pressure' brought, but I don't compromise - I can't compare with January 1985 time frame since I was not j here.

J

3) No one goes home until so much work is done. Cars are rented, planes booked - with this kind of statement I have to wonder about quality of product. I was told to tell j others and did so. Quality was not referred to.

I i

I I,

, EEF/tlw (2968A) (

i -

AR007330

n.

o o l 1

i .

I Page 2 I

l

1) and 2) are similar to other qualified "no" response to question 2 and do not appear to be a problem.

{

3) above was pursued further. The individual statements to V. Hoffman and they were allegedattributed to have the originated with N. Kaushal. The individual was not aware that l quality suffered in anyway as a 'tesult. He did not let it '

affect him personally nor was he aware of any case where anyong l did. He considers it a bad practice with potential effect on

" i

! quality.

l F iow all subsequent personnel were l speci r they were told they could not leave the '

site out o '

certain amount of work was done. Fifloen

t they were never told this. One of the j fifte , heard a rumor to that effect.

I state 1 'ss

}g Ir. Kaushal, he indicated that he had made i need to meet the BCAP schedules and that

)

1 people wousu um.. . ,.. in the necessary time to do so, even if it meant not leaving on week-ends - however Mr. Kaushal also indicated j that his statements included the need to maintain the quality of the i product in all cases.

t Conclusions t

{

1. The quality of the product coming out of BCAP task force is t

thought to be acceptable by 100% of the engineers involved.

l 2. A high percentage (84%) of the engineers did not feel that at j

any time in the past or present that pressure was applied to l meet schedules to the point where the quality of the product was

] not acceptable.

! 3. khere were statements made by senior BCAP supervision concerning the need to meet schedsles even if this required working on week-ends.

i " pressure". These statements carried with them a connotation of The original statement, hcwever, also included a

balance between schedule and quality of the product. It is

! apparent that somewhere in the communication chain, the latter i

part of the statement was dropped.

1 4. In spite of 3. above the working level engineers generally did not feel this pressur,e nor did 100% of a 25% sample feel that 3 they were being forced to stay at the site after hours or on 4

week-ends until certain work was finished. It is apparent that even if the supervisors had received the work concerning

schedular requirements, they shielded their' working level d

engineers from them and generally produced the work without the i need for pushing the scheduler requirements.

t (2948A) 4 1

AR007391

o o .

'I Page 3 1

5. Overall. while there obviously was pressure applied to meet schedules, it is concluded that there is no evidence to suggest that this push had any adverse effect on the BCAP product, b -

Recommendations

1. The BCAP Task Force Director should periodically (suggest
  • monthly) publish a written statement with broad i

' distribution within the BCAP Task Force indicating that work quality is to be maintained in light of schedular goals.

2. The schedule for mechanical equipment should be evaluated i and upon completion of the evaluation the supervisor of
the group should review the results with his group.

n J

[

i t

)

}

l 1

l

)

i 1

i l

1 ..

! (296sA)

AR007392 i

e e .

ATTACIDENT

1. Do you think that the quality of the product i BCAP Task Force is overall acceptable? (

l

2. In the past or present, while performing your within the BCAP Task Force, has there been an1 have felt that you were being pushed too hard .. ... . ......-

it caused' the quality of your products to be unacceptable?

i l

l 2a. If so, what do you think is the basis for this push?

o l

i I,

I (2960A) *- "

AR00739s -

Avp

- O F

) WR I 3W !

j March 12, 1985 J BCAP Memo 6858 DW)00 QUAUIY flRST TO: Ray Preston FROM: N. N. Kaushal On February 22, 1985, from 12:30 to 12:45 p.m., I held a general session with all BCAP Task Force inspectors and the management of the inspection group. During this session, among other things, I personally made it clear to all inspection personnel that their first responsibility was to assuring the quality of the effort. That if ever, anyone had a choice to make between meeting the schedule requirements and assuring quality of the work, their choice was to be for assuring quality. I stated that this was my policy and direction and that nobody in the BCAP Task Force organization was authorized to act in contra-diction to this policy. I reiterated that if anyone believes that he or she is being asked to act in contradiction to this policy, such an individual should, if necessary, contact me directly or if he or she prefers, commonwealth Edison Quality First group.

As you can see from the date of the session, this session was held even before you and I had a conversation regarding an l outstanding Quality First concern.

I plan to hold, in the near future, a similar session with the -

BCAP Task Force Engineering section. A memorandum recording that session will also be forwarded to you. .

N .b.

N. N. Kaushal BCAP Director NNK/sjs cc: BCAP File QG 69.60.3 QG 69.60.2.5 R. L. Byers M. A. Clinton L. A. Shea E. M. Shevlin J. 5. Sexton J. Vandelicht AR007334

,, &.~

a April 2, 1985 BCAP Memo 91037

+

i

! TO: BCAP Task Force Engineering Personnel 1

FROM
N. N. Kaushal l

SUBJECT:

Maintaining Work Quality in Light of schedular Goals i

1 As we approach completion of the SCAP offort, I would like to express my sincere appreciation of the dedication and hard work l

on everyone's part that has made possible the progress-to-date.

i We are somewhat behind our earlier projections, and I anticipate j that the pace of the effort will continue to be intense for some j time to come. However, as I have stated in the past, we must always remember that our first responsibility is to assuring the 1

quality of the effort. If ever there is a choice to be made between meeting the schedule and assuring quality of the work, our choice must be for assuring quality. This has been and '

i continues to be my policy and direction and nobody in the Task Force Organisation is authorized to act in contradiction to this policy.

i l If anyone believes that he or she is being asked to act in contradiction to this policy, such an individual should, if necessary, contact me directly or if he or she prefers, j commonwealth Edison Quality First Group.

We all recognise that an intense pace of work has been main-tained over the last several months and that this pace is i likely to continue for some time. For this reason, and as a

followup to a Quality First concern, it is prudent to ensure 1

that,the above stated policy is being understood and followed.

Consequently, during the week of April 4, Mr. E. (Gene)

! Fitzpatrick, Assistant Manager of Quality Assurance, j will be talking individually to each of the BCAP Task ,

i Force Engineering personnel. I encourage you to freely '

express yourself if you have any concerns in this regard.

N. N. k'Ld' k i

N. N. Raushal

  • BCAP Director

{ NWR/sja 3

ces M. Wallace E. Fitspatrick # -
R. Preston -[kpgy n.t. '. ,W3,'

. t,, '

1

' R. Byers '

j i BCAP File QC 69.60.3 g 1

ARC 07385 \

a g [ee l dets.c60 ifAUM

May 14, 1985 BCAP Memo #2243 TO: W. Willoughby, CSR Supervisor FROM: P. Mule' - HVAC/ Mechanical Lead

SUBJECT:

NVAC/ Mechanical Discipline Work Quality I

A meeting was conducted on May 1, 1985 with all NVAC/ Mechanical engineers assigned to discuss the need for maintaining work quality.

Personnel were reminded that their first responsibility is to assure the quality of work, despite any schedular needs. If there is ever a choice to be made between meeting a schedule and the quality of the work, the selection must be for assuring quality.

Personnel were reminded of routine practices for handlin.g any concerns regarding the quality of work that may arise. They were encouraged to first discuss such concerns with the lead engineer. If they would be hesitant to express such a concern in that manner, other d

BCAP supervisory personnel could be contacted. Should that not resolve the concern, they were reminded that the " Quality First" program was at their disposal to bring a qualityJrelated concern to their attention. .

All engineers ackno'wledged their responsibil,ity for tha quality of i work and their knowledge of the means to resolve any quality-relate.d concerns. .

l Q.

P. Mule' -

r- .'

, HVAC/ Mechanical Lead PRM/LW/jan cc: W. Willoughby

G. M. Orlov N. N. Kaushal
  • All HVAC/ Mechanical Engineers
  • BCAP File QG 69.60.3 .

-QG 69.30.1 l AR007ase,

ISHAM, LINCOLN & BEALE COUNSELORS AT LAW twnst rinst NArioNAL PLAZA eMicAco,ILLmois 4040, i9 S. LASALLE Sfn

, 5,8 r t 1-c = =,.,=, = .EEr o=

- o . m .... ,,

""*"'jn'c"d"'C'"

. uso cow.ccricur Av Nuc N w

-.Q'y,,m.

s. toegLginnoinscr BY MESSENGER ,

December 3, 1986 Robert Guild, Esq.

Business and Professional People for the Public Interest 109 North Daarborn Street Suito 1300 Chicago, Illinois 60602 Re: In the Matter of Commonwealth Edison Company (Braidwood Station, Units 1 and 2),

Docket Nos. 50-456 and 50-457 Dear Bobs Yostorday I sont you the report of the QA investi-gation of the pace of BCAP. (AR007388-7396) This investigation was undertaken in response to a statomont of concern expressed by a BCAP ongineer in a Quality First interview on January 8, 1985. (AR007388)

Enclosed are the romaining potentially rolovant documents from the Quality First file for this statomont of concern. Documents AR007397-7457 are Mr. Fitzpatrick's notes of his interviews with 61 BCAP ongincors. The names of the engincors have boon doloted by Quality First, and "Engincor 1", "Engincor 2" etc. substitutod, to protect their confidentiality. You will soo that the notes are typowritton. Wo could not find Mr. Fitzpatrick's original handwritten notes of thoso interviews. Mr. Fitzpatrick's  ;

recollection in that his handwritton notes woro typed up I without any editing and then the handwritten noten may havo boon discarded.

Documents AR007458-7480 aro also part of the Quality First filo. As you can sco, although the investigation focussed sololy on BCAP ongincors, Ceco's follow up, in the form of instructions and training sessions on the subject of

b. , t- _ _ - .

l Robert Guild, Esq.

December 3, 1986 Page 2 quality and production pressure, included all CECO QA personnel (AR007459), and all contractor QA/QC personnel (AR007466),

as well as all BCAP engineers (AR007394) and BCAP inspectors (AR007395). I have included the documentation of these training sessions for CECO QA, PTL, and Comstock. The only part of the Quality First file which I have not sent you is the documentation of training sessions for. Pullman, Getschow, NISCo, Newberg, and Midway.

I should point out that the documentation related to the training session for Comstock QC personnel (AR007468-7472) was previously provided to you and was admitted into evidence as Applicant's Exhibit 97.

t Si r1,

/

MK

! V j PPStes PNilipPf.steptoe i

enc.

cc Service List (w/o enc.)

NRC Staff (w/ enc.)

1 copy to Mr. Guild by Federal Express in South Carolina I*

1 i

)

1 0

1 i

. RECORD OF CONCERN .

Paso 2 cf 3 I.D. 30. QF 85-67 PERSON ASSIGNED TO DO INVESTICATION: I YM74 /C g I

ADVISED Q.F.*

Date CONCERN VALIDATED: l[l Yes @ 3e Datet f

.: 1 NCE INITIATEDI l[l Yes lh No NCE No.: Datet

  • RESULTS OF INVESTICATION: Date to Q.F.t I!

.Sc & AWecHf t) . t M n a a 1 / } }

A $l

~

N $W $N $$W&& $ltnGf f CeD> Cun4.YJ<a TWum /kkM2d$T

- t 1 f /) I '

l _ nl

[$Ik$X RCNMMV (CMCtH1flS hWU'Y/W V ;J j /) ,1 L MWW41H/tt

"~

U i i

I INVESTICATOR SIGNATURE: Dates APPROVAL SY Q.F. OF INVESTICATION REPORT Signature /Date YHr $ W A % A bh arb w YMa e d le o d *H. / n )

  • 4 5 ?7 6 & 7;F**

Date M"b* 2

RESPONSE

S J G S. TO ! NVIOUAL>AW_AL.'L ,1 1 % w .4 aN L Ld4hdm % MM ]

, C[03UREt Datet h'*

  • Approvedt. - *
  • Q.F. Project Director
  • Use additional pages, if necessary, and attach, g((,'/.15S 1/10/85 (0020Q) p,.,,.~_,,wn-

- - - . - , - ~ - - - - - - - ,--r,--w-m --v--

, ----+---: -'-~--w er

-_,----,n---w-w-m- -~----nn------,----,,-,--,,.-m-4 - , - -

.\ s .

'Date Antil 25. 1986 BRD# 19.862 Braidwood Training Session A special training session was held at the Braidwood Site on 04-25-86. The topic and session instructor are as listed below.

  • Tonic Instructor -

Section 21o Energy Reorganization Act  !

Status of Quality contention Activity, '

and Quality Concern 85-67

  • T. E. Quaka The session lasted approximately '76 minutes and was attended by those personnel lis d below.

R. C. Bedford , fI '*

~

W. J. Marcis k@ M '

[#7--- -

W. R. Betourne . -

G. F. Marcus 4Y'M M *

3. S. Black d' N M S. E. Mehta # ]f. elf m L4<,-

J. A. Borm b O.d .m K. A. Miller Crs L asue4 J. K. Cashmer N *e = saim E. R. Nettel I b'kt sI.

J. F. Dellamorte 1 M db MtiLG. S . Pos t Whd W. L. Hartig dd/. I / d A. M. Padlockas 'M#b-M. A. Hayse MOISb, T. J. Prendergast d D. A. Hoffer NEdk T. E. Quaka 8 - (*[It /(-.

A. R. Huffman d. 8- M b > S. J. Reutche ""MM S. C. Hunsader - =lvan R. M. Sacco T'M# der.

E. M. Kalenba [M M b> J. J. Seentek d I.N7"II G. J. Kirchner I [Id d R. S. Stockhan b'I~M ba K. R. Koecher k((wI/ g, D. B. Throne 3m8"iWo4

3. H. Kulik AMO **M J. D. Tolar '0. % Id, D. P. Kunsaann AJN r br -- 4 . D. Vine NOhM
  • rwin, uss'ea menee a.u,,,c ,o w,~,-+ v. er'es vr. ra wa=r or vm **w - =r u.r cus %,.,~nro

.r uwr~

(a m .sow m eo<es emrao m me e 1/s/w me* sH les'

- )1 g o__,

coas2r>

g, 44stro

~

s ,

?

BRD #19.862 fog 3 2 M. P. Vrla MI -

R. L. Williams <9 F.tM le ...

M. J. Wendell ;I , sh (( J. A. Zych 1d . b/

y c/w

/* (12 K. R. Koecher Q. A. Training, Coordinator Braidwood Station .

T S.m M J. K. Cashme# ,

Q. A. Supery;,sor Braidwood Station JKC/KRK/mjy (0032F)

Cet M. J. Showski/K. J. Hansing Q. A. File /40.2 Q. A. File /40.3 Attendees' Folders Q. A. File 2850.16 - PTL Attendees' Folders F. D. Forrest 0

AP.c07460

I Date March 21. 1986 ,

BRD# 19.528  !

Braidwood Training Session A special training session was held at the Braidwood Site on I 03-04-86. The topic and session instructor are as listed below.

Tonic Instructor Matters Pertaining to Ceco NCRs and Ceco NCR #744 T. E. Quaka The session lasted approximately 46 minutes and was I attended by those personnel listed on the attached sheet.

l l

f $ht Ass R. R. Koecher Q. A. Training Co)rdinator Braidwood station b  : *A.)

J. p 'Cldhaer" )

Q.A. Supervisor traidwood Station 1

JKC/KRK/ajv (0032F) cc: W. J. Showski/K. J. Hansing '

Q. A. File /40.4 Q. A. File /40.3 Attendees' Folders Q. A. File 2050.16 - PTL Attendees' Folders F. D. Forrest AP.0074G1  !

pe e a eo e e a a

  • e -

mx .. . .. .- -=

. _ _3 w o urd sh_p_o.....

&B M --

c.) . : . . a e.w ,~

9m K-dri1M K. L LD.

Q1Yl;L -

ruua C LL,- ~ . Mn LJM V7 k ~

tb 92/A 49.L%d -

a:A cma u tr.L.

edu/L L 2(:) W Ae.

6.f %t

/L%u %t n

~

ke B.AL J/ hA \

' rah La 1% W_= = l WAMLJ Nb Oku -

AlB D ' fKhid \

'MfKm s'd19 '

kLs AA M:E A .f.&c; d ili v a b r _

ha shl) wa l. - -

%n. __ cMsg' EFEA. - AnXAK

' #f~hez

< Arad ldS H.Ti I M Gb/

inMtLL27 h sL M&' 1,4 h91w Aftof Is ariM i s . Anco,.ise

/22dtka  %$&

- . ., v , n

.o .

Date July e. 19e5 3RD# 16.736 Braidwood Training session A training session was held at the Braidwood Site on 07-08-85 The topic and session instructor are as listed below.

IRRig Instructor W

.... .S. ,].*.'-ohs,

i. .. -- . b tl3 W.-- utsf T. R. Quaka The session lasted approuJd3Tely attended by those personne M minutes and was 1 mted below.

R. C. Bedford e g. C. Hunsader P. M. Berry [/A 2-_[ E. M. Kaleaba [M bS -

N I e >=:eemesEEEas, _

J. A. Borm b /d b 3. H. Kulik PN didM 2 -

D. P. Kunamaan N*-

h aem=dasaan- h [g 8 L.I ammtmar-*

J. K. Cashner K. V. Chronisky d b b I.. W. J. Marcis _!MM4 +

5. L. Clark _ DU/M E. T. Mazur DY# n GN K. A. Miller //e1 M A. J. D' Antonio 8[/MI- 5. K. Mehta 2tIMI .

Au fl.h r r ,

JN EN _e R. W. Frey IT h//J/A A. M. Padlockas #A8_N W. L. Hartig C. A. Hayes

- N' f' N M M 41 T. E. Quaka 5, 4 . a.. . . n M[%ddb _

M. A. Hayne 'JF[ddI~ Is M. W. Rutherford Md/MM ,

D. A. Hoffer 0 6 de h A. R. Huttaan d f. LYW NJ W" C'. ::

vs l

(cosar)

ARC 07.tG3 ,

r,

,.s .

\;

BRD S16.736 Page 2 Braidwood Training Session July 8, 1985 Ceco Attendees Cont'd.

J. J. Saontek b bw N- R. D. Vine /e J*

J. E. Smith 8. d w --

M. P. Vela [dM bf A

  • W. P. Smith [ *DW R. E. Maninski Nde m N , ,

M. J. Wendell ////#/6md4 E. 8. Stockhan MMb L-- -- d - 4 C. M. Stokes 4T M N* -

2 22-R. C. Tate T.OM E. F. Wilmore NY M2[ u s J. D. Tolar @141'u L,P ,i-STL) k 0 bf4C f.,

hMR 8 d,8/G NM/4

[<N f.rs. Post Y., L-

/

Q. A. Training Cooldinator Braidwood Station

~

7-e 7 r>

E. F. Wilmore Q. A. Supervisor traidwood Station EFW/GSP/mjy (0032F) cc W. J. Showski/K. J. Hansing K. R. Koecher Q. A. File /40.2 Q. A. File /40.3 Attendees' Folders AR0074s.1

. .Owa w blation h ,'

s W A 1. t. . 81 ~

Bracevelo. IL 60407 Tc'echene 815/458-2801 Jeae 8. Isos 44SJECT: $nality Policy $tatement = tratesees the stjective of tAs geality Progra et the tralessed ecclear Station Project le te assere that the plant te cemetracted la asesteense ella agereses deelga egettfications, thergey esserlag that it le licenseesle, eserante ans estatainagle. The devotessent (ad aestalstrellen of the total mellty progra regstres coereinetten, emeerstanelag and sessenese esmag tae esperimente emeee aatteltles tesect emellty.

L!as tenartenata ,

the reesomeltility for emellty le primarily assigned and estreeted to all essere of the total Line organiselles free the tes annager to es nemet employes. ftle laelsese teu cemenseella edleen and all of its aestractere, flere sigly, tases ese acessellet the more are reesenettle for sullelag polity inee the flatened preengt.

$nellty as a eenagement geel het eenet states ette predsettee, seneste aos cost. M ilty's scese ,

latleese the process, the resellant preestt, and the regelred eccessetellen of both, is ereer for everyone to participese effectleely la aseleslag geellty geele, Line orgamlaallene emot en tae felleelagt 1 Geflas gaelity espectations and criterlag

2. Estaallen presseures last proelde estasselegles for ashlesing geellty criteria, le assertence alta Carporate Snellty Aseeranes standeree:
3. Periselate escreerlate and roolred esementatten to emessetrate met snellty reelresents he,e been fulfilles;
d. Provide the assessary tretelag, essenlag, teels and annagment oversight lleselvesenti; S. Provies a same for latielenel eereere to report gnellty prueless se that as@erleed porteneel can leelemmet eerroettve aettee and, if acesseery, step ours:
4. letagrete bellty Aseeranes posele late eetly actleltles la ereur to effect a constructive team effort.

la adeltles, tae sentracter orgselsettene emot estaellet efforttee Snelity Centeel grosse to smelter ey intesetten tae emellty of toe the to-eresses aettettles ame the reseltlag presset. Thoes $nellty Centrol groupe east neve antaarity te estatlist inesettles told 3e1e44 and then noecesary, eles pressetlen la steer to actieve preventles or eerrecties of cellty defittencies.

esalltz 40saransa Ameertoma4 fte erleary reeemeltility of me gnellty Aseeresse esseresset le te assere that one Cergerete snelity toneset le encoretees, easserted and asseted tarmenset the trolemed Project. fnle le to to accagilened by emene of the felleslagt 1 Estaallenlag gaellty Assurense reestreanstel I

!. Cameettlag eergellimens and anelle thet fosse se procedures, presses aettellies and iglassetalles le arter te pruelde teforeelles to the Lles ergenlastles per pelr use la 1

aderseeleg areas asedlag atteotles aos lorsement;

3.

I lorseylag roesitant prosest gelity to serify presses and sesenet asemetallityl

d. providtag geleellese and goldense to aselet tee Llas ergeslaations la es,elesing goality criteria.

Line vs. Ihsality "^- - talatt- ^la As#IMing Se trolessed geellty geels reentres that the partitlpettee of geellty Asserence pseele to atempted and letagreted lete the sortese aseesta of tas Llee ergenlaatteme' eettelties, la sotaallenlag the l emellty criterte and the eypeeslagles for aanteeleg tesee artnerte, Llas pesete eneeld strive to temp

. I emellty eenel le leportanes le senseslo and east,

. O.h geellty Asteramee people steeld series le serify that the eneseelegles se ashleve the emellty criterle

  • " "#8 i

j yf are telag fellemed and uet me erlierte are telag out. Onelity Asteranos posele easeld aestet the Llas peuple le esclarlag different moye to aanleve tae assired fosette, lastedlag timely reeeletten of steergee y prestese.

l "W

-; Lastly, the seseees of tAe traleood $melity Progres essende se posele, it pertteelerly desense en pele ellllassess to partletpete ella a esseerative ettttese endicated to setteslag a geellty preenet le 4 (y pr6ttital, east effsettee and lleely sammer, (3 .

i l

i p3.J.0* Canners ARC 07465 Cnalreen and Proeleomt

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

55 CORD OF CONCER4 . Paso 2 Cf 3 I,D. 30.. QF 85-67 PERSON ASSIGNED TO DO INVESTICATION: M L*

ilaisc ApvI ED o.r.: -

l Date CONCERN VALIDATED: l[l Yee No Deter NCR INITIATED:

e l[l Yes l5l No NCR No.: Date: ,

1

  • RESULTS OF INVESTICATION: Date to Q.F.: i Due 'f2 TMs A>1rutt 0 I:~ TA k Canece.O A D,'se u r s ie'.o
11) A C W21 D M)/ TN dwy=npyg2S d.A./O C. Cisk =2vs$crs s r <

( ba -rHz e.a>ru a/* /-/V-8[ }

Di s e o s sic.0 o)) Porrs/As fo'o MJeg /31swec O.>)

D C, SFSow)CL. $uBEA' L//Eoit ? 4</frM " A2 d u / T*7 4 O fe o Dirc us! As/D Deems >>r~ *f#' th Asuls sw susr# AL L. CA/

o c. Pr c rea>/tre ~r' s er isir ~7//s' 'r- AA Posn w ribeJ Sb:rfs 21

/ BalAis Air ~ n>J Rw . AA/D #du ALE sYbepfA)Dfdir seoar .4^// fDx t w n e 7io' 'o P r r s o < /s/z e .

1 1%'eisCC/OAU s u// h'; 5 CsuSDA $ Msit PMV peliin ameuow 6( c. c, Asw.' Abbee! It Lle)

Gus r M. Alcu)*nstc CV F' F-ze iss-r- S. asst. % res.

1it s74.</c / As .W T Ce* $)At o 1.'f PsNMA, LK Co arinex G/

R. L [lCN. // h/D a)M,, l A, $2 4/P hi)t L MA.a/ $//1 8 / W 1 FAllGn b

  1. Ye Ar> AJA f A.OA3 DtE*LO.":~ro o)
  • lAst rN fs*h" .4 m .?A$/dC.

. u u rs/k*er! o sh!/'t f/f t. C/ $/ $ lC / l A SCO. YN Y**

APPROVAL SY Q.F. OF INVESTIGATION REPORT:

Signature /Date RESPONSE TO INDIVIDUAL: Dates j CLOSURE: Dates Approved:

Q.F. Project Director i

l

  • Use additional pages, if necessary, and attach.

12/17/84 N' 06 (00209)

. RECORD OF CONCERN 'J ' Pago 2 cf 3 I.D. NO. QF 85-67 PERSON ASSIGNED TO DO INVESTIGATION: uGLAs k- RowM ADVISED Q.F.:

Date ,

1 CONCERN VALIDATED: l[l Yes @ No Date:

l[l h NCR INITIATED: Yes No NCR No. :

  • Date:
  • RESULTS OF INVESTIGATION: Date to Q.F.:

/7?PelhIQ tWGS shfY W b$ b/t)Shb 0o 0- k l s/a4 Afand draNehA 'es/aar > b / di 8 A ssee '

b>r l

% 4 ' be 4e W ' o,1&sk sem w /p-7kr tw < oAn o!%aied Af/ pminaA L

  1. fe a <<ws - so sue 5 Aladd) e m ed; we,e c6,e/A Oug (b u, ors os ruumnwToa : The saoorvisa of

% -- inel A o w no La s dn obt tomtA, 40 Ttsh Ge a u 9-aloi ;+v bf 4lmo . In sne$ ors he w obbm-lo 'wn c k tw an e# h i m utmar nJ U Soe e 1(soA rak e en o a ecA w4.u~ %e' r we'c k lood 6*s.+ci es tglei n aM ity ,

Senocal sMato monks n o m r a lJ o d eerns do not ohw sgeciOc. colu4fus .

INVESTICATOR SIGNATURE: ate: /8T V2E@ M '

APPROVAL BY Q.F. OF INVESTIGATION REPORT:

Signature /Date RESPONSE TO INDIVIDUAL: Date:

CLOSURE: Date: Approved:

Q.F. Project Director

  • Use additional pages, if necessary, and attach.

1/10/85 AR007467 (0020Q)

. - . , m w

  • \

E

~~

JAN 2 2 895 9 Comstock Engineering, Ir -- l'e AIDWOOD QUAll1Y FIRST Memorandum LKLf A To: Joe 1011 r - i W E33Et O C O. Office: Braidwood From: _ I. DeWald

Subject:

Production Pressure Date: 1/19/85 l'

Control No. 85-01-19-01 Per our conversation on 1/16/85 concerning production pressure. A discussion was held during the weekly Q.C. meeting at 5:00 p.m. on 1/18/85. There were no complaints from the inspectors concerning production pressure being put on QC inspectors.

Please find attached the training sheets (Form 101) for all personnel. If you have any questions, please contact my office. ,

Respectfully,

/AW I . F. DeWald Quality Control Manager IFD/sm Attachments j cc D. Shamblin F. Rolan R. Seltmann QC File QC Mgr File AR00*/468

.. .I, hk EaAIDNCOD 4.1.3 g ggg

-i L. K. COMSTOCK O COMPANY. INC.

L. K. COMSTOCK & COMPANY, INC.

PERSONNEL INSTRUCTION LOG

  • i

! INSTRUCTION MAS SEEN EIVEN TO TNE FOLLOWING PERSONNEL  !

1 .

1 .

g  ;

SY: 'I'.

h M ACA G O.- M (a(L. ( - t Y-l'f l Name Position Date l d ua.h ea31e sciULL L) l A AJIA f Topic Specification / Procedure Revision l INSTRUCTION OBJECTIVE: dDual.Tv 4.sr Onco.b NO. OF HOURS SUSJECT: b 5 4 uSS'od NEL 00 h dutDao Esu.a.t ,

r, is To EL4. uwba:n.5 Toob TWAT w Iespae Aus. TuTwLW l iubaipewasc7 o/r Puduc.uca kessuna. %Jo Twey A-^4- FA.

  • C prou @^. e.%v 4. e s of Poodu.cnes io Tw +r Nple. n iue be A Lt.o tTE.4 "TD O.x,mplLTt. htd. (Le4s.s.t d.M i 4 8-4'E f-h hM , fhdue.ncy J P n.n. c .a a.r., i s. per w:> ac. 0.m:,snm. . As hq toeti< A a,c,u m, NAME/0EPT- EMPLOYEE NO. NAME/ DEPT. EMPLOYEE NO.

t .1A % f .

  1. 24. nson e Ist .

( 0$

A,4 'l YL O' k-lh G dw/& A/S.S 1 0 $ ,, A 91 7ANAD S A ~97 h Abb$5bW A- Ts4 -

)%hWEkt I)$~/jd 0 -WN / . #43 M.WE Atercr

$$$A A 26

& 6E, ' iiou -

48akl~ k'3 l

.b %dd,IY ki? 2 If f>Yna '

A73.- '

AR00",4S9 INSTRUCTOR pasanaso asenovso navesso nru oneo. oars navssiose pones g C

ans an arg P90C800RE 4/3/30 7/11/34 101

. ~.. - . , .

. 2 -~~:--.~c=<~- -

.,.i ,

\

NAisE. 7 Oh k f~ L. K. COMSTOCK & COMPANY. INC. CRAIDWOCD 4.1.3 3m L. K. CONSTOCK & CONPANY, INC.

PERSONNEL INSTRUCTION LOG INSTRUCTION HAS BEEN GIVEN TO THE FOLLOWING PERSONNEL

. T BY: 1. MAO Q O.- M6R I - t Y-IY Name Position Date d uo h ed a scKR L L)lA -

A.J l A Topic Specification / Procedure Revision INSTRUCTION OBJECTIVE: D u Al.Tv .4.as- Onco $ C NO. OF HOURS

SUBJECT:

b.s t.uss oa Ha o oc % 6u.cdeas MiW Se.E 3 rr is To av u.wm:n s.Toob Twwr eac a ocesexou na m. trfrwt_W ico pcao ser of Adv.c_rew Eh.essun.a. <wo mw A me. hr-

%~ Pn.w u u s of Paodu.cnc > i c hv % pLE. n iu e ~bE.

A u.eera o ,o Ot.weta.re. bec ac.av a4.4 io 5-Wc.hw .. Eh.cdue.nw Pnw ua.c. i s. pex to e.c. 0.ecsaw.z.o As. t%q i.oo, tic be, o.u s._rs NAME/ DEPT- EMPLOYEE NO. NAME/ DEPT. EMPLOYEE NO.

$ /-

66 A/f3~ .2fY.2 V .

/Md./r M /A ,, * *s-

$Nh/k p ra t-Yl Wi A.A

/J-60 4 n> ?t n% v w- 7t i o.3 .

040$t -

! #M' e4 %.dDf - .-

A ii? I 1

$,$. 0 )Vh,aE A-/W/J28534 h ik Y A1k9 b 72 & h c=.

.Iw:~ Nhnute '

'A .2 st -

de_ Hmid

~

4-a59 4

ARoo7470 INSTRUCTOR enemanso 4**=oveo azvisco tarts amis. oan navision ronas g c

RAB 21 173 PROCEDURE 4/g/30 ,7/12/34 101

. . w. _. m. : .a.. e.

. . : . - , .. . . v 9 -,:n - . . - .c. . . ~e. -: -- -~~:  %.m- .' x ~.-

( ..

l L. K. COMSTOCK O COMPANY. INC. E* * " 4=13 QA sect L. K. COMSToCK & ConPANY, INC.

PERSONNEL INSTRUCTION LOG IllSTRUCTION NAS 8EEN EIVEN TO THE FOLLOWING PERSONNEL g

ev: .r.bron& Ge u 6 ft. t-iF- d l

name Position Oate 0lA b d ua w oo i nscan.c eiA Tor,ic Specification / Procedure Revision l IllSTRUCTIOli 08JECTIVE: (D o Abw (v:- Omc0EC NO. OF HOURS SuSJECT: b 5 4.u 55'od H E.' ou %6ueb ea kussu.n.c ,

rr is a n,= na.ama 5Tooh rwn w._ respaue,<.s aus. wirwt.ty 1 qu e peac ec7 o4- Pa.cdus_ Tic,0 kessun.a. % JD h4e q A rt4- IA

  • C l pm Pn. w ux.s of Gsoau.cncw io wr >pLe. n ue be  !

A LLo Tars.o TE) 0.cMplLTT. 'h r16. (Le.du.utA4 is0 Ch'Ec.hhV , h.cdue.no I l PAAtsust.O eL 9eT ha tB C. O eos:ntu.a.p AG by L4o. tic. A4;s tdo um t ".rs, NAME/DE PT-'- EMPLOYEE NO. NAME/ DEPT. EMPLOYEE NO. I Eu' :i 7/./ (fttkrLt bX 7KUd .

k ., m A 41 2 6 rA Azss Llb/0 A~ n so n Y b W D- 4 f.et bdm.4 cIM 4 -alf- )

? A-o - .x av ~

/ -

\ n~h o'. -  :

&>>d5 A-I% 9 AdW f~ ned J"w.d /;,W-

E. W Sh Ik s. ; =5 M. L ;w v .

fkJE / ma o "-

dad ~

s-m u '

9 n2z -

AP.%7471 INSTRUCTOR

  • asonaso apenovso navisso vm.s omio. oats navisiese ronas g C

R&B ER RTS PROCEDURE 4/9/30 7/11/84 101

        • -- e -- - - "5:. w
, . e-:.m -. ._.e..e : : ,.~ +.v m-.p. c~s -

.a .-

'['I ,. .

~

( ,, b 'E- N o h h j L. K. COMSTOCK O COMPANY. INC. amAIDucop 4.1.3

, g 3,7

~

L. K. COMSTOCK & COMPANY INC.

PERSONNEL INSTRUCTION LOG INSTRUCTION MAS BECi GIVEN TO THE FOLLOWING PERSONNEL T

sy: .3~~. h C d G O.- M 6 ft- t-iY- #

Name Position Date

. d u n _w t>.3 M e s s ( tt c LJ l A 3.3 l A Topic Specification / Procedure Revision INSTRUCTION OBJECTIVE: (Dunl.Tv in s - 02>cGEC NO. OF HOURS

SUBJECT:

h st,u.sseons ht oc h h bbas M S.unE 3

r.r i' Tb (bV LL'uMd 5 Toob TMAT A( EAsspsLTDd5 A4.5 'tchLLs.f l Aj D t.perJD EA27 ch 94.cdv.c t w ktE 5.SstitK. Afs)D hig /%.rtq F/L4 sE.

Em Paw uos of Peau.cne . .a .wT sku p te. n u e be-A Lt o RTE.O ~Tr.) 0.c m p l e T t. ' h tt2 (24.4u.s d.4 o I M Q'EC.h b4 . (hedae.ms.J Ptur.cas.u n.C. i s. pct To Bg.

Q.eos:nua.c o AG

  • h% t.co4 (- Ass,td!s ON Ars NAME/0EPr - EMPLOYEE NO. NAME/ DEPT. I EMPLOYEE NO.

//./O / .

]. '

b' .

'k ' A .15 ~7 -

d c. A/Jd

/ A-5 s~' C hY ou )~.If Y. l- ~Y1

'besh<. - /: ..? e S hkss GK

  • h -'&.'-A b ~ 0-D 7/ h E 8'Ah h f6 O?Lw Ms R' , (Udl c;te %lz6 .

W k2OE) N Q' k /'I5 A A .96.*f' -

~

l69 l acm@ ato1 < ML- 6 6m All1./ a. M 74 LAJAs m hA

/OQc k~/ S[

.Ldd#ffd&u, DB566 RSKM sat -

AprfWem

~ ' ' ' ~

INSTRUCfDK l

pmEPAnto Ammovgo navisso firs g omia.oATE 8t4 VISION FORM g l g i RAB 23L ETE PROCEDURE 4/9/80 7/13/ 84 101

.. . . ..--...1 4,  :-e -

t..

lpl fgggggg Pittsburgh

. nia. .- cusc Aeo .

~ . -

Laboratory P.O. Box 668 Braidwood, IL 60408 January 24, 1985 PTL/BRD #00,173 TO: D.Spamblin FROM: T.C. Frazier Ceco PCD PTL

SUBJECT:

Quality First Per my discussion with Mr.' Joe Lella, meetings have been held with all of our quality control inspectors. The purpose was to discuss concerns raised by the Quality First staff, and relayed to you in regards to certain QC inspectors who feel that they have been pressured into hurried inspections or having to produce more inspections than the inspector felt capable of performing.

I would like to say that during the discussion portion of the lecture none of the inspectors indicated that they felt this situation was present within our organization.

Enclosed are the attendance sheets for this lecture as well as attendance sheets for the PTL Drug and Alcohol policy lecture as requested.

C jm D T.C. Frazier G Assistant Site Manager l

l l

1 TCF/jeg (0005z)

Enclosures cc: Joe Lella File ARLO"/1T?

MW W 88COSfvt.t moac e ** ELLS DE *LLW S N * ( N MS 5050

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

, s

~

I Pittsburgh cT L -. c H eca no

{ fggggggg

~ - -

Laboratory

/ -Z/- Bf DATE MEMO TO FILE

SUBJECT:

Training The following personnel attended a 3o m:o information session covering the Quality First Program.

[-

/ <. / p, r_ t - ,  %  % ,

JM n'so May/ dddt?Lhh CMKVJL

/ Ost ruk-2.;&af~ 7%d/mM l-- t /

/ /*/ ~ r j . .,

R l 3 .

/ =* h f dt k  %

eg. M_. m. . A E ~

k lf /*V ,, *Y 4LAJrL-

' M J2 ~

min % ,

fidd/ Obi A'.

. &. , . nW' (24h 4' l

_// .

f/ M g 6 m e 3d L 2 ' ' A D. ks . Attuo i i74 -

Instructorj Review - Site Manager .

ede w 8eOOStvt6988040 * **g4SiOE g6sasC>S 8047

  • f 3%?i eds- Scmo se awee.g weegoweos veemoweee avet, s aceLITIS e

..w

v. .

Pittsburgh on. - cy c n a o fgggj

~-- Laboratory

/ 22 85' DATE MEMO TO FILE

SUBJECT:

Training The following personnel attended a 20 m .b information session covering the Quality First Program.

h) k 0 9. Y Y i n. _

1 1.ts 0 cm %.6 B L p/i i E AA~ o W sapfdL i

9 t

- s l Instructor Review - Site Manager

.... . ~., - .

. m . . - . . .. . . . arc 07475

.....~............................

Pittsburgh cn i. - c wie Ano l TeStIFIg

,s ~. Laboratory

/ ~ 2 2 ~8S ,

DATE MEMO TO FILE

SUBJECT:

Training The following personnel attended a 20 m .s information session covering t e Quality First Program.

VL v.Ind;,

L b X L_

J AA2 SL OK

( 6 // 9 % , w

'#. 4..J_d.MJ -

/c Instructor L 3 Y.Eu Review - Site Manager

.. _ _ ...... . _ . _ .. _ _ . . _ . . _ ... . _ ARCO m s

.....~............................

i

. . 1 Pittsburgh p ri. - c wic a n o j g

' ~ ~ - Laboratory (

/~ 2 2 *W DATE l

MEMO TO FILE

SUBJECT:

Training The following personnel attended a 8C U information session covering the Quality First Program.

r

- -2 b]b mw

  • ~ '

9, // . ,. -. 3/- - // /' < - s 0 1. 9 M L a Yn b (Lu kDkkit.M t %

GL'u xdL I Ou t s s a g l-kus x \ '

l > MA-A W u. . , .

( -r

- m.<~a ,,.h ,

C LNI _ [w N b. -

Instructor Review - Site Ma' nager arc 07477

. . . . - x . . ,s. o .o . e . ~,.m,..m...._,

88 #W'*88 WOetOwscs TooeOweee perTT S.get#Teg.

s .

Pittsburgh cv6 - cwec a n o l gggy

~ .- Laboratory

/ 228 b" DATE MEMO TO FILE SUBJEdT: Training The following personnel attended a 2C -- information session covering the Quality First Program.

a m a 1 (N_ ~

r. 9 % J J

[(4 h 2* A

/AL /h_L///

d%O 14d 0

'afD @ %

5M 2 dwd L VWL-M1 ereL)

GJdfM'A CJE_4 Mf4 l

( A L. M a , e se.L =

Instructorj

%M Review - Site Manager

... _ ....., _ . . _ . _ . _ . . _ ... _ . aum478

. . . . ~ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. j 1

Pitisburgh on - cueca co l fgggjpg j

~ ~ - Laboratory

/ - 2 E - 8 5' DATE MEMO TO FILE

SUBJECT:

Training ,

l The,following personnel attended a 2d , .L information se'ssion covering the Quality First Program.

l1 n s. s. - 7i.u $ 1

)

I lAs ' bbs 1 /

/ Wi]-

/ w

  • e f ,

s e d ,Y 'c ,

/A A'd Y

=,C s'/ l0 w1/1

.-A c-A LL-

/, ' / fr/

/, .

-t// 1 k? FA - c I l

l 1

-- 0 > *

~

Instructor O Review - Site Minager

... - ..... ... _ .. , ~ . ~ ........ _ Ahuu?473

.....~............................

Pittsburgh 1

~

on e- '

E Testing Laboratory.

j l

/~ ch .$ ff DATE MEMO TO FILE

SUBJECT:

Tr a i r. i ng The following personnel attended a EC etw information se q on covering th D uality First Program.

t it t *i41

a. . .. . . . / .

,, - .m. -

1 F O

  • w n u si

, . . a .

..Q ' r e' . . . ) c

>-  ? , .V,'.'\_ s  %

LahH B fou7bsrLA

//d N L calatk " ~

/d ...., A?6' 1

& @b-4kLin .

k'<-.e .e s i W .8.% i"

.; n '

4 = .'. 7, f~%-

  • 4 . w. GL . ~ t.

Q vfJa63 se n ] N. .

N Review - Site Manager Instructor Ah Xi450

..O.. . .m. . . . 9 o. ., . - , S. , . . . - ,. . m .... . ..

Se eweseS WOngeweeg tooegwOoo pert T 9.C4 09e4 8

. _ _ _ . . . - _ _ __ - . _ _ _ = _ ._-

s

. .C ENGINEER 1 4/9/85

1. Do you think that the quality of the product coming from the BCAP Task Force is overall acceptable?

Yes

2. In the past or present, while performing your assigned duties within the BCAP Task Force, has there been any time when you have felt that you were being pushed too hard to the point where it caused the quality of your products to be unacceptable?

No a

2a. If so, what do you think is the basis for this push?

N/A ARG07397 (0353B) l

_ . _ _ _ _ = . _ . _ . _ _ .__ _ _ . _ _ . _ _ ._._ __. . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . --_

e ,,

ENGINEER 2 4/8/85

1. Do you think that the quality of the product coming from the
BCAP Task Force is overall acceptable?

1 Yes s

> 2. In the past or present, while performing your assigned duties within the BCAP Task Force, has there been any time when you have felt that you were being pushed too hard to the point where

it caused the quality of your products to be unacceptable?

No 2a. If so. what do you think is the basis for this push?

! N/A r

l I

l 3

ARC 07.708 (0353B) l

t s ENGINEER 3 4/9/85

1. Do you think that the quality of the product coming from the BCAP Task Force is overall acceptable?

Yes

2. In the past or present, while performing your assigned duties within the BCAP Task Force, has there been any time when you have felt that you were being pushed too hard to the point where it caused the quality of your products to be unacceptable?

No 2a. If so, what do you think is the basis for this push?

N/A l

1 i

AP.C07aos (0353B)

L. .

O ENGINEER 4 4/8/85

1. Do you think that the quality of the product coming from the BCAP Task Force is overall acceptable?

Yes s.

2. In the past or present, while performing your assigned duties within the BCAP Task Force, has there been any time when you
have felt that you were being pushed too hard to the point where
it caused the quality of your products to be unacceptable?

+

No i

l 2a. If so, what do you think is the basis for this push?

1 N/A ARC 074;o (0353B)

? o ENGINEER 5 4/10/85

1. Do you think that the quality of the product coming from the BCAP Task Force is overall acceptable?

Yes

2. In the past or present, while performing your assigned duties within the BCAP Task Force, har there been any time when you have felt that you were being pushed too hard to the point where it caused the quality of your products to be unacceptable?

No - Qualified - current schedule for mech. equip. is unrealistic & (not rational). this has been discussed with supervisor - get polite response - pressure is resisted when applied.

2a. If so, what do you think is the basis for this push?

Feels marketing job initially & CECO pushing schedule.N/A ARCG74;1 (0353B)

ENGINEER 6 4/8/85 9

1. Do you think that the quality of the product coming from the BCAP Task Force is overall acceptable?

l Yes

2. In the past or present, while performing your assigned duties within the BCAP Task Force, has there been any time when you i have felt that you were being pushed too hard to the point where it caused the quality of your products to be unacceptable?

No 2

2a. If so, what do you think is the basis for this push?

1 N/A l

l ARCG7402 (0353B) 1

ENGINEER 7 4/10/85

1. Do you think that the quality of the product coming from the BCAP Task Force is overall acceptable?

Yes

2. In the past or present, while performing your assigned duties within the BCAP Task Force, has there been any time when you have felt that you were being pushed too hard to the point where it caused the quality of your products to be unacceptable?

Pressure brought but did not compromise - only been here 3 mos. so can't compare between past and present.

2a. If so, what do you think is the basis for this push?

i Not sure l

ARC 074c3 i

(0353B)

, n ENGINEER 8 4/10/85

1. Do you think that the quality of the product coming from the BCAP Task Force is overall acceptable?

Yes i

2. In the past or present, while performing ycur assigned duties within the BCAP Task Force, has there been any time when you have felt that you were being pushed too hard to the point where' it caused the quality of your products to be unacceptable?

No 2a. If so, what do you think is the basis for this push?

. N/A l

k l

ARC 07404 (0353B)

-- __ - _ . . - = . . - - - - _ _ .....-_ - . . -.-. _ -- - -.__-._- -

e .

i E!IGINEER 9 4/8/85

1. Do you think that the quality of the product coming from the BCAP Task Force is overall acceptable?

i i

Yes Il

2. In the past or present, while* performing your assigned duties within the BCAP Task Force. has there been any time when you I.

have felt that you were being pushed too hard to the point where it caused the quality of your products to be unacceptable?

No i

l

  • I i

2a. If so, what do you think is the basis for this push?

N/A f

r I

i l

f ARC 074C5 I (0353B)

ENGINEER 10 4/10/85

1. Do you think that the quality of the product coming from the BCAP Task Force is overall acceptable?

Good impression - no sloppiness - in fact just the opposite

2. In the past or present, while performing your assigned duties within the SCAP Task Force. has there been any time when you have felt that you were heing pushed too hard to the point where J

it caused the quality of your products to be unacceptable?

There are pressures but don't let them affect him - not undue - checks & balances are sufficient to control.

I 2a. If so, what do you think is the basis for this push?

N/A i

! l i

j ARC 074L6

4 ENGINEER n 4/12/85 l

1. Do you think that the quality of the product coming from the BCAP Task Force is overall acceptable?

Yes

2. In the past or present, while performing your assigned duties within the BCAP Task Force, has there been any time when you 1 have felt that you were being pushed too hard to' the point where it caused the quality of your products to be unacceptable?

Not Undue - No case where told could not leave until certain work done.

2a. If so, what do you think is the basis for this push?

l N/A i

i I

i l

l 1

ARC 074tv

! (0353B) l

ENGINEER 12 4/12/85 1

\ -

1. Do you think that the quality of the product coming from the BCAP Task Force is overall acceptable?

Yes l

I

2. In the past or present, while performing your assigned duties within the BCAP Task Force, has there been any time when you have felt that you were being pushed too hard to the point where it caused the quality of your products to be unacceptable?

~

No - Never told could not leave until certain work done.

2a. If so, what do you think is the basis for this push?

! N/A I

1 a

T i

i l

i I ARCG7408 i (0353B)

t ENGINEER 13 4/9/85

. 1. Do you think that the quality of the product coming from the BCAP Task Force is overall acceptable?

Yes

2. In the past or present, while performing your assigned duties within the BCAP Task Force, has there been any time when you have felt that you were being pushed too hard to the point where it caused the quality of your products to be unacceptable?

j No I

1 1

I i

1 2a. If so, what do you think is the basis for this push? )

l N/A h

l I

ARCG74CS j (03538)

ENGINEER 14 4/10/85

1. Do you think that the quality of the product coming from the BCAP Task Force is overall acceptable?

Yes I

i

2. In the past or present, while performing your assigned duties within the BCAp Task Force, has there been any time when you have felt that you were being pushed too hard to the point where it caused the quality of your Products to be unacceptable? 1 l

l No l

1

. l 2a. If so, what do you think is the basis for this push?

1l N/A l

l l

1 l

1 4

e ARCO?410 (0353B)

1 i

I ENGINEER 15 4/12/85

1. Do you think that the quality of the product coming from the BCAP Task Force is overall acceptable?

Yes

2. In the past or presen't, while performing your assigned duties within the BCAP Task Force. has there been any time when you have felt that you were'being pushed too hard to th*e point where it caused the quality of your products to be unacceptable?

No - Never told could not leave until certain work done.

2a. If so, what do you think is the basis for this pu'sh? .

i N/A ,

i i

l l l

l l 1

i

)

~

ARCG7411 I

l (0353B)

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

ENGINEER 16 4/16/85

1. Do you think that the quality of the product coming from the BCAP Task Force is overall acceptable?

l Yes  !

=

l 1

2. In the past or present, while performing your assigned duties within the BCAP Task Force, has there been any time when you have felt that you were being pushed too hard to the point where it caused the quality of your products to be unacceptable?

No - Never told could no't leave site prior to certain work being done - has heard rumor wise.

l 2a. If so, what do you think is the basis for this push?

N/A j

ARE07412 l

(0353B)

_ l ENGINEER 17 4/9/85 ,

l

1. Do you think that the quall'ty of the product coming from the BCAP Task Force is overall acceptable?

Yes

2. In the past or present, while performing your assigned duties within the BCAP Task Force, has there been any time when you have felt that you were being pushed too hard to the point where it caused the quality of your products to be unacceptable?

No l

l l

2a. If so, what do you think is the basis for this push?

l N/A 1

'l s

. Agc0'7413 t

(0353B)

ENGINEER 18 4/8/85

1. Do you think that the quality of the product coming from the BCAP Task Force is overall acceptable?

Yes

2. In the past or present, while performing your assigned duties within the BCAP Task Force. has there been any time when you have felt that you were being pushed too hard to the point where it caused the quality of your products to be unacceptable?

Present No - Past there was some, but it did not affect his work.

l 2a. If so, what do you think is the basis for this push?

Felt the push was coming from Ceco Management.

ARC 0"/414 l (0353B) l l __ __ -- -

ENGINEER 19 4/9/85

1. Do you think that the quality of the product coming from the BCAP Task Force is overall acceptable?

Yes

2. In the past or present, while performing your assigned duties- -

within the BCAP Task Force, has there been any time when you have felt that you were being pushed too hard to the point where it caused the quality of your products to be unacceptable?

8 4

No I

. 2a. If so, what do you think is the basis for this push? ,

1 N/A i

5 I

l ARCC7415 l (0353B) 1

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

ENGINEER 20 4/10/85

1. Do you think that the quality of the product coming from the j BCAP Task Force is overall acceptable?  ;

Yes

2. In the past or present, while performing your assigned ' duties
within the BCAP Task Force, has there been any time when you
have felt that you were being pushed too hard to the point where it caused the quality of your products to be unacceptable?

No - In the past did express some concerns about items to include W/i particular populations. Felt concerns were dealt with adequately by his supervision. Also feels there are enough checks & balances W/i BCAP T.F. to ensure concerns are addressed. .

i 2a. If so, what do you think is the basis for this push?

N/A l

I gy,GO*7416 (0353B)

ENGINEER 22. 4/12/85

1. Do you think that the quality of the product coming from the BCAP Task Force is overall acceptable?

Yes

2. In the cast or present, while performing your assigned duties within the BCAP Task Force, has there been any time when you have felt that you were being pushed too hard to the point where it caused the quality of your products to be unacceptable?

No - Never told could not leave until certain work done.

l l

2a. If so, what do you think is the basis for this push?  !

l l

N/A  ;

l l

AP.C@

(0353B)

. .__ . . - . - ._ . _ . - _ _ - - . . . .- _. _ - . . _ _ - - _ _ _ = .

ENGINEER 22 4/8/85 l

1. Do you think that the quality of the product coming from the BCAP Task Force is overall acceptable?

Yes l

2. In the past or present, while performing your assigned duties within the BCAP Task Force, has there been any time when you have felt that you were being pushed too hard to the point where it caused the quality of your products to be unacceptable?

No - However there have been some discussions relative to observations that are not viewed by Encr. 22 as appropriate from a quality viewpoint. ~He felt that none of these had been finalized to date & felt comfortable that they would be resolved properly. He attributed these to some engineers on the task force being inexperienced in the quality assurance area.

2a. If so, what do you think is the basis for this push?

N/A l

l gA0"/418 (0353B) l l

ENGINEER 23 4/10/85 .

1. Do you think that the quality of the product coming from the BCAP Task Force is overall acceptable?

Yes

2. In the past or present, while performing your assigned duties within the BCAP Task Force, has there been any time when you have felt that you were being pushed too hard to the point where it caused the quality of your products to be unacceptable?

No i 2a. If so, what do you think is the basis for this push?

N/A e

i 4gt0'7419 (0353B)

ENGINEER 2h 4/12/85 l .

1. Do you think that the quality of the product coming from the BCAP Task Force is overall acceptable?

Yes i

2. In the past or present, while performing your assigned duties within the BCAP Task, Force. has there been any time when you have felt that you were being pushed too hard to the point where it caused the quality of your products to be unacceptable?

No - Never had anyone tell him he could not leave unless certain '

work done.

2

.5 2a. If so, what do you think is the basis for this push?

N/A l

l l

1 I

I

~

i gy,tcW.20 (0353B)

, EMEUGER 25 4/8/85 1 l

l

1. Do you think that the quality of the product coming from the l BCAP Task Force is overall acceptable? '

Yes

2. In the past or present, while performing your assigned duties within the BCAP Task Force, has there been any time when you have felt that you were being pushed too hard to the point where it caused the quality of your products to be unacceptable?

No 1

2a. If so, what do you think is the basis for this push?

N/A 1

l l

ARG07421 (0353B)

ElIGINEER 26 4/12/85 i 1. Do you think that the quality of the product coming from the 4

BCAP Task Force is overall acceptable?

Yes

2. In the past or present, while performing your assigned duties within the BCAP Task Force, has there been any time when you have felt that you were being pushed too hard to the point where it caused the quality of your products to be unacceptable?  !

l No 1

i 2a. If so, what do you think is the basis for this push?

l N/A Agtc7422 i (0353B)

ENGINEER 27 4/12/85 1

1. Do you think that the quality of the product coming from the BCAP Task Force is overall acceptable?

For most part - has gut feeling that if had to expand to 100% would not.do so - no basis

2. In the past or present, while performing your assigned duties within the BCAP Task Force, has there been any time when you have felt that you were being pushed too hard to the point where it caused the quality of your products to be unacceptable?

No - Never had anyone say could not leave unless certain work done.

2a. If so, what do you think is the basis for this push?

j N/A T

B l

l l

1 (0353B)

EIVGIEER 28 4/16/85

1. Do you think that the quality of the product coming from the BCAP Task Force is overall acceptable?

Yes

2. In the past or present, while performing your assigned duties within the BCAP Task Force has there been any time when you have felt that you were*being pushed too hard to the point where it caused the quality of your products to be unacceptable?

No - Never told he could not leave site prior to completing

+

certain work 2a. If so, what do you think is the basis for this push?

N/A 1

l arc 07424 (0353B)

EllGINEER 29 4/10/85

1. Do you think that the quality of the product coming from the BCAP Task Force is overall acceptable?

Yes 4 2. In the past or present, while performing your assigned duties within the BCAP Task Force, has there been any time when you have felt that you were being pushed too hard to the point where it caused the quality of your products to be unacceptable?

No 2a. If so, what do you think is the basis for this push?

N/A j

i l

l 1

I i

i t

I 1

g,00"/425 (0353B) l

- . _ . . g -- -- s -. -.a. a . - - - - . w - -

! i ENGINElm 30 4/10/85

1. Do you think that' the quality of the product coming from the BCAP Task Force is overall acceptable?

Yes i

l 2. In the past or present, while performing your assigned duties l within the BCAP Task Force, has there been any time when you l have felt that you were being pushed too hard to the point where it caused the quality of your products to be unacceptable?

l No l

2a. If so, what do you think is the basis for this push?

I N/A

'I i

An,c07.',2G (0353B)

. l E!IGINEER 31 4/12/85 l

1. Do you think that the quality of the product coming from the BCAP Task Force is overall acceptable?

Yes 1

2. In the past or present, while performing your assigned duties l within the BCAP Task Force, has there been any time when you ,

have felt that you were being pushed too hard to the point where i it caused the quality of your products to be unacceptable?

No - Never told could not leave until certain work done.

2a. If so, what do you think is the basis for this push?

i N/A 1

I l

Ay,c07427 (0353B)

. l ElIGINEER 32 4/9/85 l

l l

1. Do you think that the quality of the product coming from the '

BCAP Task Force is overall acceptable?

Yes

2. In the past or present, while performing your assigned duties .

within the BCAP Task Force, has there been any time when you have felt that you were being pushed too hard to the point where it caused the quality of your products to be unacceptable?

No 2a. If so, what do you think is the basis for this push?

N/A l

l gco1428 l (03538) . t l

l ERHNEm 33 4/9/85 l

1. Do you think that the quality of the product coming from the BCAP Task Force is overall acceptable?

) Yes

2. In the past or present, while performing your assigned duties within the BCAP Task Force, has there been any time when you have felt that you were being pushed too hard to the point where it caused the quality of your products to be unacceptable?

No - However, a few respond to quotas but there are enough checks & balances to catch some push to rush but help provided when probs ID'd.

I I

l i

(

i l

2a. If so, what do you think is the basis for this push?

l 1

I i

i l

1 AP,C G"/429 (03538)

1 ENGIIGER 34 4/8/85

1. Do you think that the quality of the product coming from the BCAP Task Force is overall acceptable?

1 Yes i 2. In the past or present, while performing your assigned duties within the BCAP Task Force, has there been any time when you have felt that you were being pushed too hard to the pof.nt where it caused the quality of your products to be unacceptable?

No 2a. If so, what do you think is the basis for this push?

N/A l

l 1

l l

l a

l t

i l

(0353B) b*"

i j

i

ENGINEER 35 4/8/85

1. Do you think that the quality of the product coming from the BCAP Task Force is overall acceptable?

Yes

2. In the past or present, while performing your assigned duties

, within the BCAP Task Force. has there been any time when you have felt that you were being pushed too hard to the point where it caused the quality of your products to be unacceptable?

1 No t

2a. If so, what do you think is the basis for this push?

N/A I

1 ARC 07431 (0353B)

ENGINEER 36 4/9/85

'l

1. Do you think that the quality of the product coming from the BCAP Task Force is overall acceptable?

l Yes

2. In the past or present, while performing your assigned duties within the BCAP Task Force, has there been any time when you have felt that you were being pushed too hard to the point where it caused the quality of your products to be unacceptable?

i I

No t

i 1

2a. If so, what do you think is the basis for this push?

i

! N/A 1

2

'l i

e g,tG"/432 (0353B)

EIOGINEER 37 4/8/85
1. Do you think that the quality of the product coming from the BCAP Task Force is overall acceptable?

Yes

2. In the past or present, while performing your assigned duties

, within the BCAP Task Force. has there been any time when you have felt that you were being pushed too hard to the point where it caused the quality of your products to be unacceptable?

No 4

i 2a. If so, what do you think is the basis for this push?

i N/A AP.c07433 (0353B)

ENGINEER 38 4/16/85

1. Do you think that the quality of the product coming from the BCAP Task Force is overall acceptable?

Yes t

2. In the past or present, while performing your assigned duties within the BCAP Task Force, has there been any time when you i have felt that you were being pushed too hard to the point where j it caused the quality of your products to be unacceptable?

1 No - Never told couldt.'t leave site.  ;

2a. If so, what do you think is the basis for this push? -

I N/A l

i i .

1

't i g 4

Agc0"/434 (osssa) l l

1

. t ENGINEER 39 4/9/85 i i

I i 1. Do you think that the quality of the product coming from the

BCAP Task Force is overall acceptable? ,

{ Yes

-i

2. In the past or presA'nt, while performing your assigned duties I within the BCAP Task Force, has there been any tige when you have felt that you were being pushed too hard to the point where

! it caused the quality of your products to be unacceptable?

! i No , ,

i 1 ,

i f

f i

i l

I i

! 2a. If so, what do you think is the basis for this push? i t

i

! N/A '

l 1

1

]

J l

l i i i

i j ARC 07435 t

(03533)

ElIGINEER 40 4/12/05

1. Do you think that the quality of the product coming from the BCAP Task Force is overall acceptable?

Yes

2. In the past or present. while performing your assigned duties within the BCAP Task Force has there been any time wheh you have felt that you were being pushed too hard to the point where it caused the quality of your products to be unacceptable?

No - Never told could not leave until certain work done.

2a. If so, what do you think is the basis for this push? ,

N/A 1

. AP.W/.,3G 4

(03535) t

, ]!lNGIN1!2R 41 4/8/85 l

l

1. Do you think that the quality of the product coming from the BCAP Task Force is overall acceptable?

Yes

2. In the past or present, while performing your assigned duties within the BCAP Task Force, has there been any time when you have felt that you were being pushed too hard to the point where it caused the quality of your products to be unacceptable?

No I 1

i i

2a. If so, what do you think is the basis for this push?

N/A l

. AP.c07437 (03538)

l ElIGINEIR 42 4/10/85 L .

1. Do you think that the quality of the product coming from the BCAP Task Force is overall acceptable?

l Yes

2. In the past or present, while performing your assigned duties within the BCAP Task Force, has there been any time when you l have felt that you were being pushed too hard to the point where I it caused the quality of your products to be unacceptable?

No 2a. If so, what do you think is the basis for this push?

N/A l

l Ay,c07438 I (03535)

I I _ - . - _ _ _ . . _ . _ . ~ . _ _ _ . _ _ _ . . _ _ , . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ , _ _ _ _ _ _ __ ,

. l

. j ENGINEER 343 4/8/85  !

1. Do you think that the quality of the product coming from the BCAP Task Force is overall acceptable?

Yes l

! 2. In the past or present, while performing your assigned dutie,s within the BCAP Task Force, has there been any time when you l have felt that you were being pushed too hard to the point where I

it caused the quality of your products to be unacceptable?

No 2a. If so, what do you think is the basis for this push? -

N/A 1

i E

f l

l l

l '

l AgcoY.39 (0353B) 1

ENGINEE:R hk 4/10/85 i

1. Do you think that the quality of the product coming from the BCAP Task Force is overall acceptable?

Yes

2. In the past or present, while performing your assigned duties within the BCAP Task Force, has there been any time when you

'. have felt that you were being pushed too hard to the point where

it caused the quality of your products to be unacceptable?

No i

e 2a. If so, what do you think is the basis for this push?

N/A I I

a f

f i

4 f

$ j 1

(03538) 1

2 ELIGINEER h5 4/9/85

, 1. Do you think that the quality of the product coming from the

[. BCAP Task Force is overall acceptable?

, s Yes

2. In the past or, present. while performing your assigned duties within the BCAP Task Force, has there been any time when you

, have felt that you were being pushed too hard to the point where

it caused the quality of your products to be unacceptable?

l No s

1 2a. If so, what do you think is the basis for this push?

N/A i'

I

~

t I

)' \

, IlI t (0353B)

)

(

% _ -., ,, , , , - ,, . - - - --m. - , --'

---e ' -"*'-'~---v-T~

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

i

.* l ENGINEER h6 4/10/85 S

1. Do you think that the quality of the product coming from the BCAP Task Force is overall acceptable?

Yes

2. In the past or present, while performing your assigned duties within the BCAP Task Force. has there been any time when you have felt that you were being pushed too hard to the point where it caused the quality of your products to be unacceptable?

No 2a. If so, what do you think is the basis for this push?

N/A t

l l

gy,009' (0353B)

'o ENGINEER 47 4fl2/85-

~

1. Do you think that the quality of the product coming from the BCAP Task Force is overall acceptable?

1 Yes  !

l

2. In the past or present, while performing your assigned duties

, within the BCAP Task Force, has there been any time when you  ;

have felt that you were being pushed too hard to the point where  !

it caused the quality of your products to be unacceptable?

No - Never had anyone tell him he could not leave if certain work was no done.

2a. If so, what do you think is the basis for this push?

N/A 1

l i

l g,co%C3 j (0353B) 1

ENGINEER 48 4/10/85

1. Do you think that the quality of the product coming from the BCAP Task Force is overall acceptable?

Yes

2. In the past or present, while performing your assigned duties within the BCAP Task Force, has there been any time when you have felt that you were being pushed too hard to the point where it caused the quality of your products to be unacceptable?

No 2a. If so, what do you think is the basis for this push?

N/A

g,CG9 'A4 (0353B)

ElIGINEER 49 4/12/85

1. Do you think that the quality of the product coming from the .

BCAP Task Force is overall acceptable?

Yes l

1

2. In the past or present, while performing your assigned duties I within the BCAP Task Force. has there been any time when you have felt that you were being pushed too hard to the point where it caused the quality of your products to be unacceptable?  ;

I

, No - Push on schedule but time given to accomplish work in )

quality manner - never told could not leave until certain work ,

done.

1 l

2a. If so, what do you think is the basis for this push?

N/A t

ggcC7445 (0353B)

I ENGINEER 50 4/8/85

1. Do you think that the quality of the product coming from the BCAP Task Force is overall acceptable?

Yes

2. In the past or present, while performing your' assigned duties within the BCAP Task Force, has there been any time when you have felt that you were being pushed too hard to the point where it caused the quality of your products to be unacceptable?

No i

l 2a. If so, what do you think is the basis for this push?

N/A e

(0353B)

EMINEER 51 4/12/85

1. Do you think that the quality of the product coming from the BCAP Task Force is overall acceptable?

Yes

2. In the past or present, while performing your assigned duties within the BCAP Task Force, has there been any time when you have felt that you were being pushed too hard to the point where it caused the quality of your products to be unacceptable?

No - Never had anyone say he could not leave until certain work completed.

2a. If so, what do you think is the basis for this push? ,

N/A  ;

l g,c0744"1 (0353B)

EIKIINEER 52 4/9/85

1. Do you think that the quality of the product coming from the i BCAP Task Force is overall acceptable?

Yes 1

2. In the past or present. while performing your assigned duties within the BCAP Task Force, has there been any time when you  ;

have felt that you were*being pushed-too hard to the point where it caused the quality of your products to be unacceptable?

No

+

j l

1 i

2a. If so, what do you think is the basis for this push?

N/A I

e l

gy,cc-F.48 (0353B)

I

._.,..m . c .

, --= - - + - - - -

. j

.' 1 ENGINEER 53 4/12/85

1. Do you think that the quality of the product coming from the BCAP Task Force is overall acceptable?

l Yes

2. In the past or present, while performing your assigned duties within the BCAP Task Force, has there been any time when you have felt that you were being pushed too hard to the point where it caused the quality of your products to be unacceptable?

No one goes home until so much work is done. Cars rented, planes booked - with this kind of statement have to wonder about quality of product. Statement has been made to individual was told to tell others and passed to others in Jan. time frame. Never referred to quality. Not aware that quality suffered in anyway as a result. He went on vacation in Dec. when first statements made. Would not Personnally succumb nor does he know of any case where anyone did. Considers it bad practice with potential effect on quality.

4 2a. If so, what do you think is the basis for this push?

Stated by V. Hoffman & alleged to N. Kaushal.

i l

n ejt.D

] (0353B)

ENGINEER 54 4/9/85 l l

1. Do you think that the quality of the product coming from the BCAP Task Force is overall acceptable?

Yes

2. In the past or present, while performing your assigned duties within the BCAP Task Force, has there been any time when you '

have felt that you were being pushed too hard to the point where it caused the quality of your products to be unacceptable?

No - and his population is running approx. 3 weeks behind schedule.

l 1

1 4 l 2a. If so, what do you~ think is the basis for this push?

N/A I

gf)460 (0353B)

ENGINEER 55 4/8/85

1. Do you think that the quality of the product coming from the BCAP Task Force is overall acceptable?

Yes

2. In the past or present, while performing your assigned duties within the BCAp Task Force, has there been any time when you have felt that you were being pushed too hard to the point where it caused the quality of your products to be unacceptable?

No 2a. If so, what do you think is the basis for this push?

1 N/A Agc0'7451 (0353B)

l- ,

ENGINEm 56 4/10/85

1. Do you think that the quality of the product coming from the BCAP Task Force is overall acceptable?

Yes

2. In the past or present, while performing your assigned duties within the BCAP Task Force, has there been any time when you have felt that you were being pushed too* hard to the point where it caused the quality of your products to be unacceptable?

Not now - but in the past there was unreasonable pressure being applied schedular wise. AE personally did not succumb nor did he notice anyone else who sacrificed quality for schedule.

2a. If so, what do ycu think is the basis for this push?

Felt pressure vis coming from management and was perhaps related to prestige, promotion, looking good, fy,G6'7?t O2 (0353B) l

ENGINEER 57 4/12/85

1. Do you think that the quality of the product coming from the BCAP Task Force is overall acceptable?

Yes

2. In the past or present, while performing your assigned duties within the BCAP Task Force, has there been any time when you have felt that you were being pushed too hard to the point where it caused the quality of your products to be unacceptable?

No - Never told could not leave until certain work done.

2a. If so, what do you think is the basis for this push?

N/A Ag;0"/453 (0353B) t i

P ENGINEER 58 4/10/85

1. Do you think that the quality of the product coming from the BCAP Task Force is overall acceptable?

Yes

2. In the past or present, while performing your assigned duties within the BCAP Task Force, has there been any time when you have felt that you were being pushed too hard to the point where it caused the quality of your products to be unacceptable?

No 2a. If so, what do you think is the basis for this push?

N/A Agt07454 (03538)

^' \

l ENGINEER 59 4/9/85 )

l l

1. Do you think that the quality of the product coming from the BCAP Task Force is overall acceptable?

Yes

2. In the past or present, while performing your assigned duties within the BCAP Task Force. has there been any time when you have felt that you were being pushed too hard to the point where it caused the quality of your products to be unacceptable?

No 2a. If so, what do you think is the basis for this push?

N/A l

l I"

(0353B)

e e .

ENGINEER 60 4/9/85

1. Do you think that the quality of the product coming from the BCAP Task Force is overall acceptable?

Yes

2. In the past or present, while performing your assigned duties within the BCAP Task Force, has there been any time when you have felt that you were being pushed too hard to the point where it caused the quality of your products to be unacceptable?

No I

2a. If so, what do you think is the basis for this push?

l N/A  ;

ggM56 (0353B)

DGIKDE 61 4/8/85

1. Do you think that the quality of the product coming from the BCAP Task Force is overall acceptable?

Yes

2. In the past or present, while performing your assigned duties

- within the BCAP Task Force, has there been any time when you have felt that you were being pushed too hard to the point where it caused the quality of your products to be unacceptable?

No ,

l l

2a. If so, what do you think is the basis for this push?

N/A ,

1 l

f,0Y*

(0353B)

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML20214F875&oldid=3243877"