ML20128P059

Responds to NRC 850402 & 25 Ltrs Re Violations Noted in Insp Rept 50-271/85-11.Corrective Actions:Independent Investigation Conducted. Rept of Investigation Carried Out by Ropes & Gray of Apparent False Documentation... Encl

ML20128P059
Person / Time
Site:	Vermont Yankee
Issue date:	05/23/1985
From:	Murphy W VERMONT YANKEE NUCLEAR POWER CORP.
To:	Murley T NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I)
Shared Package
ML20128P064	List: ML20128P059 ML20128P089
References
FVY-85-47, NUDOCS 8506030452
Download: ML20128P059 (6)

Text

-

VERMONT YANKEE NUCLEAR POWER CORPORATION FVY 85-47

. RD 5, Box 169, Ferry Road, Brattleboro, VT 05301 ,,,Ly yo; y ENGINEERING OFFICE 1671 WORCESTER ROAD

• FRAMINGHAM, MASSACHUSETTS 01701 TELEPHONE 617-472-4100 May 23, 1985 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Inspection & Enforcement Region I 631 Park Avenue King of Prussia, PA 19406 Attention: Dr. Thomas E. Murley Regional Administrator

References:

a) License No. DPR-28 (Docket No. 50-271) b) letter, USNRC to VYNPC, Inspection Report No. 50-271/85-11, dated 4/2/85 c) letter, USNRC to VYNPC, NVY 85-72, Notice of Violation and Enforcement Conference Report, dated 4/25/85

Subject:

Report Requested Under 10CFR 50.54(f) Concerning Apparent False Documentation of Results of Receipt Inspections As a result of a routine unannounced inspection, the results of which are documented in Reference b), your office issued Reference c) which, among other things, required, pursuant to 10FR 50.54(f), Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corporation to submit:

"a report of your investigation into apparent false documentation con-cerning the results of receipt inspections; an explanation of how these incidents occurred and with whose knowledge; a determination of the cause of the falsification, including the responsible individuals; and a descrip-tion of the actions taken or planned to prevent recurrence of similar incidents."

This letter, with enclosure constitutes Vermont Yankee's submission in response to the above described request.

0506030452 850523 PDR ADOCK 05000271 0 PDR lt 60 ,

\ J

3 VEllMONT YANKEE NUCLEAlt POWEll COllPOllATION U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission May 23, 1985 Page 2 I. Report of Investigation into Apparent False Documentation Concerning Results of Receipt Inspections Given the seriousness of the charges contained in References b) and c), the Chief Executive Officer of Vermont Yankee reached the decision that the investigation of this matter should be conducted by an outside organization independent of, and not subordinate to, Vermont Yankee management. As a result, the Boston law firm of Ropes & Gray, which is Vermont Yankee's out-side independent counsel with respect to NRC matters was requested to con-duct the investigation. A copy of the " Report of Investigation Carried Out by Ropes & Gray of Apparent False Documentation of Results of Receipt Inspection at Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station" (Investigation Report) is enclosed herewith. The Investigation Report is incorporated herein by reference as Vermont Yankee's response to Part I of your request. The Investigation Report states es its conclusions the following:

1. There is no evidence of any kind that any receipt inspector or other Vermont Yankee personnel engaged in knowingly false information in records or attempted in any way to mislead any reader of Receipt Inspection Checklists (RIC).

2. The various RIC forms in use throughout the relevant time frame were inadequate in many respects and contributed significartly to the dif-ficulties cited in the Inspection Report.

3. The inadequacies of the forms were compounded by an almost total lack nf instruction to inspectors as to the methodology to be used in filling out the form, which led to inconsistent treatment of the various categories listed on the form.

4. Both the RIC forms and the revisions of the Administrative Procedure of which they were part left too much room for interpretation by the individual inspector.

5. The various revisions of the Administrative Procedure applicable during the relevant time frame failed to make clear that certain inspec-tion techniques approved by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission were permissible. As a result, techniques which satisfied NRC regirements were insufficient to satisfy the Administrative Procedure.

6. Management gave insufficient attention to changes being made in the language of the RIC Form and Administrative Procedure and thus, failed to remedy the inadequacies of these documents which are the root cause of the inadequacies found in the Inspection Report.

. o VEltMONT YANKEE NUCLEArt POWElt ColtPOltATION U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

L/ 23, 1985 Page 3 II. Explanation of How These Incidents Occurred and With Whose Knowledge The report of the investigations of each specific RIC questioned in References b) and c) are set out on pages 16-22 of the Investigation Report. It is apparent that the incidents arose from three different honestly held beliefs on the part of various receipt inspectors:

1) There was a universal belief that inspection by sample was sufficient.

And indeed, the NRC Staff Regulatory Position in fact is that sampling is an acceptable technique [ Regulatory Guide 1.38 adopting ANSI N45.2.2 - 1972]. The problem was that the applicable Vermont Yankee Administrative Procedure did not specifically provide for use of sampling. Thus there was a failure to follow the applicable QA proce-dure as written.

2) At least one incident arose from the understanding of an inspector that if a physical characteristic was not pertinent to a given item, the proper treatment was to simply circle "Yes" on the RIC.

3) With respect to incidents involving the attribute " dimensions," one instance arose from an inspector's understanding that if no drawings were provided, the proper resolution was to circle "Yes" without further comment; and the belief of anothar inspector that a check of part numbers as given on a box against a catalog that gave dimensions was sufficient.

f To the extent that any RIC contained objectively erroneous (i.e., " false" in NRC parlance) information, knowledge of what the RIC contained was con-fined to the receipt inspector; no review was required by applicable proce-dure as a matter of course.

III. A Letermination of the Cause of the Falsification, Includin Lthe Responsible _ Individuals As stated ir the Investigation Report, there is no evidence that any receipt inspector or any Vermont Yankee personnel believed that any infor-mation placed on any RIC was false. The causes which underlie the fact that the questioned RICs arguably could be viewed as misleading to an out-side reviewer have been determined to be as follows:

r~-

5q 9 A VERMONT YANKEE NUCLEArt POWElt COltPOIIATION U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission May 23, 1985 Page 4

1. The language of the applicable Administrative Procedure was, in 1975, perhaps inadvertently, changed to remove the language taken directly from an NRC approved ANSI standard to permit use of sampling. This change was never caught and, as a result, the continued use of sampling constituted a violation of the Aoministrative Procedure as written.

2. The Administrative Procedure and the RIC form left too much of the interpretation to the individual inspector.

3. There was insufficient attention given To the training of receipt inspectors to assure that there was consistency in the interpretation and understanding of the terms utilizec in the RIC.

4. No provision was made for review of RICs as a matter of course, thus contributing to the failure to address in a timely fashion the defi-ciencies set forth in Nos. 1-3 above.

Responsibility for all of the foregoing lies with management personnel.

Direct responsibility lies with those who had imnediate supervisory authority over those acting as receipt inspectors when they were acting in that role: the Stores and Purchasing Supervisor and his immediate superior responsible for QA procedures: the Administrative Supervisor. In ascending order therefrom, the responsibility Ties with the Plant Manager, the Vice President and Manager of Operations, and the Chief Executive Officer.

IV. Actions Taken or Planned to Prevent Recurrence 04 Similar Incidents As discussed above, the failure to implement a Receipt Inspection Program which included the necessary implementing procedures to demonstrate to an independent third party that receipt inspections were being performed in accordance with applicable NRC regulations, is the responsibility of Vermont Yankee management. Further, the failure to adequately train receipt inspection personnel to ensure consistency in the interpretation and understanding of the terms utilized in the RIC is also the responsibility of managemen .

To ensure that a similar incident does not recur, Vermont Yankee is in the process of finalizing an upgraded Receipt Inspection Program. The upgraded program is based on recommendations made by a Plant Manager initiated Task Force which was established inmediately following the Plant Manager's noti-fication by the Resident Inspector of the results of Region I's audit of

r" 'q

~

ERMONT YANKEE NUCLEAll POWEll COllPOllATION U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission May 23, 1985 Page 5 our Receipt Inspection Program. The Task Force was encharged with the responsibility to review the results of the Region I inspection, perform a detailed evaluation of the programmatic deficiencies resulting in the fin-dings, and propose comprehensive recommendations to correct any identified deficiencies.

At the same time, the Plant Manager took immediate steps to implement interim procedural and administrative requirements to enhance receipt inspection practices.

As a result of the Task Force efforts, Vermont Yankee is in the process of finalizing revisions to the Receipt Inspection implementing procedures, issuing new administrative guidelines to enhance the receipt inspector's ability to perform inspections and taking other steps to improve the overall effectiveness of the receipt inspection process. In addition, necessary personnel training to the revised procedures and new guidelines will be conducted once the procedures and guidelines are approved by mana-gement. We believe implementation of the upgraded program will insure that receipt inspections are properly performed and documented. Until the upgraded program is fully in place, the interim requirements imposed by the Plant Manager assure that receipt inspections are being performed and docu-mented in an adequate fashion.

Because of the implications inherent in the NRC's findings, the Vice President and Manager of Operations has issued a memorandum to all Vermont Yankee employees stressing the importance of understanding what an indivi-dual is acknowledging by his or her signature. The memorandum also makes it clear that if an individual is unsure as to the meaning or intent of a procedural step that he or she is responsible for, that the individual has an obligation to clarify the intent with his or her supervisor. In turn, the supervisor is responsible for ensuring that the procedures are adequate for performing or documenting a particular task or action and that the employees under his or her supervision are appropriately trained and qualified to perform the task or action.

In conclusion, we believe the immediate and planned actions to upgrade the existing Receipt Inspection Program, coupled with a reemphasis of the proce-dural responsibilities of plant employees, including managers, will serve to ensure that a similar event will not recur.

)

NEllMbNT YANKEE NUCLEAlt POWEll COltPOllATION U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission May 23, 1985 Page 6 We trust that this information is deemed to be satisfactory; however, should you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact us.

Very truly yours, VERMONT YANKEE NUCLEAR POWER CORPORATION W "

Warren P. Murphy Vice President and Manager of Operations WPM /dm STATE OF VERMONT)

)ss WINDHAM COUNTY )

Then personally appeared before me, Warren P. Murphy, who, being duly sworn, did state that he is Vice President and Manager of Operations of Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corporation, that he is duly authorized to execute and file the foregoing document in the name and on the behalf of Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corporation and that the statements therein are true to the best of his knowledge and belief.

4h M.Mcct,, _

D Diane M. McCue [ Notary Public My Commission Expires February 10, 1987 l HOTARY l

(2 PUBUC w

- 4 5

g CDUt(Y' 4