ML20154G580
| ML20154G580 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Maine Yankee |
| Issue date: | 09/06/1996 |
| From: | Boal D, Caputo G, Letts B NRC OFFICE OF INVESTIGATIONS (OI) |
| To: | |
| References | |
| 1-95-050, 1-95-50, NUDOCS 9810130235 | |
| Download: ML20154G580 (76) | |
Text
}C J
() b D
Title:
MAINE YANKEE ATOMIC POWER STATION:
ALLEGED DELIBERATE FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH NRC RE0VIREMENTS l REGARDING THE ADEQUACY OF THE PLANT'S EMERGENCY CORE COOLING SYSTEM AND MATERIAL OMISSIONS BY THE LICENSEE l
Licensee: Case No.: 1 95 050 Maine Yankee Atomic Power Company Report Date: September 6, 1996 I 329 Bath Road Brunswick, Maine 04011 Control Office: OI:RI 4
Docket No.: 50 309 Status: CLOSED 1
Reported by: Revh ved by: l l
Dennis Boal,' Special Agent Barry R.lletts, Director l
Office of Investigations Office of Investigations Field Office, Region IV Field Office, Region 1 Particioatina Personnel Approved by:
Ernest P. Wilson, Special Agent Office of Investigations Field Office, Region I Dr. Yi Hsiung Hsii, Senior Reactor m -
CM Gdy P. Caputo, Direct #r Engineer Office of Investigations ,
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Op 9810130235 960906 PDR ADOCK 05000309 .
G PDR /
WARNING e '
e
's ( e s /a\ \
fi6 4 tith e$ o~t, of '{1nvestiga
'throu hon consists'Q pages as not Ee
/
rjviegd i
re$lir'ough) 75 ,
tiAits 9 It h a) exemptions no ha$anye>emp~.
t Sectior) 2.
hpursuaattoj10'ateri$166end tbd. Do not dissemirate. olac in the Pt!bl ic bocument/Ph6m. r discuss /the cbatents/ofsthis rfport butsAde N C W+thout' adthorftv of the/aoprovinhfficiahofAh4s reobef. Jr' eat
( @
7 l
4 SYNOPSIS
- l On December 6,1995, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's (NRC) Office of
. Investigations (OI), Region I, initiated this investigation in response to anonymous allegations that were made aublic in early December 1995, regarding, among other things, the adequacy of t1e Emergency Core Cooling System (ECCS) at the Maine Yankee (MY) Atomic Power Station, Wiscasset, Maine. Generally, it was alleged that the Maine Yankee Atomic Power Company (MYAPCo), in concert with Yankee Atomic Electric Company (YAEC), knowingly performed inadecuate small break loss of coolant accident (SBLOCA) analyses of the ECCS anc
' deliberately misre) resented the analyses to the NRC. Specifically, the OI
- investigation soug1t to determine
- (1) whether MYAPCo deliberately failed to implement, for fuel Cycles 12 and 13, the RELAP5YA SBLOCA analysis, as accepted and approved by the NRC in a January 1989 Safety Evaluation Report (SER): and (2) if the RELAP5YA computer code was deliberately imalemented in
- June.1993, for Cycle 14, in a manner that did not conform with t1e SER and the requirements of 10 CFR 50.46.
i Based on the evidence developed during this investigation OI concludes that
- (1) for the period June 1990 through May 1993 (during Cycles 12 and 13),
- MYAPCo willfully failed to imphment an acceptable EM (the RELAP5YA SBLOCA I analysis approved by the NRC via a January 1989 SER) as required by 10 CFR I i 50.46: and (2) MYAPCo/YAEC willfully failed to implement the RELAP5YA EM, in the June 1993 analysis for Cycie 14, in a manner consistent with the NRC's January 1989 SER and the requirements of 10 CFR 50.46.
l l
1 Case No. 1 95 050 1
~
THIS PAGE LEFT BLANK INTENTIONA!.LY Case No. 1-95 050 2
t I
l TABLE OF CONTENTS r
Paae SYN 0PSIS................................................................ 1 L
LIST OF ACR0NYMS....................................................... 5 !
l ORGANIZATIONAL CHARTS.................................................. 7 h
(
LIST OF INTERVIEWEES................................................... 11 l
- DETAILS OF INVESTIGATION................................................~13 )
l l' Appl i cabl e Regul ati ons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 Purpose o f Investi gation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
13 Background....................................................... 13 Ccordination with the NRC Staff.................................. 15 Allegation 1: The SBLOCA analysis utilizing RELAP5YA,. as approved by the NRC in a January 1989 SER. was deliberately not implemented from June 1990 through May 1993 (Cycles 12 and 13). thus failing to conform with 10 CFR 50.46............. 16 Evidence..................................................... 16 Pertinent Documentation...................................... 16 Interviews.......,........................................... 26 l Agent ' s An al ys i s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51 Co ncl u s i on . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55 l Allegation 2: RELAP5YA was deliberately implemented in !
-June 1993 (Cycle 14) in a manner not consistent with the NRC's January 1989 SER and the requirements o f 10 C FR 50 . 46. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ................... 55 Evidence..................................................... 55 Pertinent Documentation...................................... 55 Interviews................................................... 58 1 Agent's Analysis............................................. 64 Co ncl u s i o n . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66 SUPPLEMENTAL I NFORMATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67 L I ST O F E XH I B ITS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69 Case No. 1 95 050 3
L 1
I l
THIS PAGE LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY l
l I
l Case No. 1-95 050 4 r
}
l
\-
(
1 LIST OF ACRONYMS l
ANF Advanced Nuclear Fuels BE Best Estimate I l
BWR Boiling Water Reactor CE Combustion Engineering CE0G CE Owner's Group CFR Code of Federal Regulations COL Core Ope"ating Limit l
COLR Core Operating Limits Report CPAR Core Performance Analysis Report i ECCS Emergency Core Cooling System i EIR Event Inquiry Report EM Evaluation Model FSAR Final Safety Analysis Report LBLOCA Large Break Loss of-Coolant Accident LOCA Loss of-Coolant Accident LOFT Loss of Fluid Test ML&B Morgan, Lewis and Bockius LLP l MWt Megawatt, Thermal I MY Maine Yankee Atomic Power Station [ Plant]
MYAPCo Maine Yankee Atomic Power Company NED Nuclear Engineoring Department [YAEC]
NRR Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation OE Office of Enforcement 01 Office of Investigations DIG Office of the Inspector General PCT Peak Cladding Temperature l Case No. 1 95 050 5
l l
l l
PM Project Manager i PWR Pressurized Water Reactor RELAPSYA A Computer Program developed by YAEC to analyze thermo hydraulic responses of the reactor RSB Reactor Systems Branch [NRR]
SBLOCA Small Break Loss of Coolant Accident SER Safety Evaluation Report S/G Steam Generator TER Technical Evaluation Report TMI Three Mile Island TS Technical Specifications UCS Union of Concerned Scientists YAEC Yankee Atomic Electric Company YNSD Yankee Nuclear Services Department YR Yankee Rowe l
Case No. 1 95-050 6
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
.=,
a MAINE YANKEE
- 2 e .
OFFICERS AND DEPARTMENTMANAGERS ll D.T. FLANAGAN CHAIFR4AN
! o ' BOARD OF DIRECTORS
{ $ ,
I i ,
- C. D. FRZZLE '
f - PRESIDENT i CHEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER l
i I i I i
A. C KADAK j P. S. LYDON G. M. LEITCH VICE PRESIDENT, NUCLEAR
~
G. D.WHITT1ER VICE PRESIDENT VICE PRESIDENT VICE PRESIDENT FINANCE & ADMINISTRATON , OPERATIONS UCENSING & ENGINEENNG (PRESIDENT YANKEE ATOMIC) monummmmma
\ m Mm L R DIEHL -
J. R HEBERT MANAGER, UCENSING -
=a R F.PROUTY ASSISTANTTO VP, -
R L BICKFORD MANAGER MAINTENANCE i - MANAGER OPERATONS
& ENG. SUPPORT j PUBLIC AFFAIRS C. R. SH AW
, A.R.SHEAN - MANAGER M.J. VEILLEUX OPERATIONS
{
MANAGER, PLANT - MANAGER
- J.C.FROTHINGHAM TRAINING STRATEGIC PROGPAMS ENGINEERING j <
R.H.NELSDIJ i ~
MANAGE!R
- TECHNICAL SObPO j .
S Yankee Atomic Electric Company A. C. Kadak Proeident and
.., Chief Executive Officer i I I I I I R. Mottor, Manager T. Bennet S. P. SctmAz J. K. Thayer 7 C. R. Qark y p_ p of Operational Vice Proeidere Vice Presiderit Vice President -
Director Decommissioning Eng. Sciences Projects Ex m M Quanty Assurance and Treasurer Environmental Northeast
- - Troseury - Engineering and -
Utilities /Seabrook - -
m ,
Laboratory Project Irdsoty _ informacion _
Automation _
Vennant Yankee _
-a- - 1- e, ct Human Fuel P. L h QuaRty R-aa***a -
unnagernoni
- g S.r* ..
m J. R. Chapman W. J. Metevia
,, - Director - Assistant Manager Nuclear Eng. MY Project
_ Safety I Aeoesamort Physice
.. P. A.Bergeron
- Manager Transient Analysis R. K. Sundaram Manager
- Chairman, Nuclear Safety CtweetasowsonGons Audit and Review Committee
. .- . ?s I
O o -
. o-
',m - '
l
- n
!F YANKEE ATOMIC ELECTRIC COMPANY 5 NUCLEAR ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT
- P
'8 l" IQ
\ '
i s & NUCLEAR ENGINEERING ..
! g DEPARTMENT l 8 i
d %
i 9
f -
TRANSIENTANALYSIS REACTOR PHYSICS SAFETYASSESSMENT LOCA i .
, GROUP GROUP GROUP GROUP 1
7 7- 7 7 I
3 4 - RELOAD SAFETY .
~
- RELOAD CORE DESIGN - PRA - RELOAD LOCA i ANALYSIS- ANALYSIS
- SPENT FUEL POOL - IPE
, - SGTR CRITICALITY - CONTAINMENT
- IPEEE ANALYSIS j - EOP SUPPORT - FUELMANAGEMENT t - MAINTENANCE RULE - COMPLEXTH MODELS
- CORE FOLLOW . - CEALIFETIME
! - SEVERE ACCIDENT - FUELPERFORMANCE
- - SIMULATOR - FLUENCE REDUCTION MANAGEMENT 2 BENCHMARKING - EOP SUPPORT 4
- INCA PLANT SUPPORT - MOV REllABILITY
- SPENT FUEL POOLT/H ANALYSIS - SEVERE ACCIDENT
- RELOAD STARTUP ANALYSIS
1 I
i I
i r
l l
THIS PAGE LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY l
l l
l i
i Case No. 1-95 050 10 i
1 LIST OF INTERVIEWEES 1
Exhibit ANDERSON, Peter, YAEC Project Manager................... ..... 157 BOYNTON. David, MYAPCo Section Head, Nuclear Engineering...... 126, 163 I DaSILVA. Hugo. YAEC former LOCA Engineer...................... 137 EVANS, Steven, MYAPCo Licensing Engineer...................... 165 ,
1 FAIRTILE, Morton, NRC Senior Project Manager.................. 132 l FERNANDEZ, Thomas, YAEC former LOCA Engineer.................. 140 FRIZZLE, Charles. MYAPCo President and Chief Executive 0fficer..................................................... 168 GARRITY, John, MYAPCo former Vice President..... ............. 169 GHAUS, Jamalle, YAEC former Nuclear Engineer. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 144 HAQUE, Quazi, YAEC former LOCA Engineer.......... ............ 139 HARVEY, Robert, YAEC Senior Nuclear Engineer.................. 148 HEBERT, James, MYAPCo Manager of Licensing and Engineering Support......................................... 127, 161 H0DGES, M. Wayne, NRC Director of the Division of Systems i Technology, Offi ce of Research. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 133 HOLDEN. Cornelius, NRC Senior Reactor Operations Engineer (former Senior Resident Inspector at Maine Yankee).......................... ....................... .. 134 l HUSAIN, Ausaf, YAEC former LOCA Group Manager................. 125 JONES. Howard, HYAPCo Principal Nuclear Engineer. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 166 JORDAN, Robert, MYAPCo Senior Licensing Engineer......... .... 129, 164 KADAK, Andrew, YAEC President and Chief Executive Officer. . . . . 160 LEEDS, Eric, NRC Office of Nuclear Materials Safety and Safeguards Section Leader (former MY PM).................... 135 LOOMIS James , YAEC former LOCA Engi neer. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 141 McCANN, John, YAEC Licensing Coordinator................. .... 153 4
l METEVIA, William, YAEC Assistant Project Manager, MY Project.............................. ................... 123, 155 i
Case No. 1-95 050 11
, .~ . - - .- .-- - - -. . _ -.-.. - . _ . - -.-. - . -
. NELSON,. Robert, MYAPCo former Department Manager of Plant Technical Support................. .................-.. 138 NICHOLS, Steven, MYAPCo Manager Corporate Engineering......... 128, 162 l PAPANIC, George, YAEC former Licensing Engineer............... 152 i
PHILLIPS, Laurence. NRC Section Chief, Reactor
. System Branch (NRR)......................................... 142 l RUSHBROOK, Madeline, NRC former Branch Technical Assistant (NRR)............................................. 146 l
l SCHOR, Liliane, YAEC LOCA Principal Engineer. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 149
- l. SCHULTZ, Stephen, YAEC Vice-President, Engineering Sciences... 158 L
i SCOTT, Michael , YAEC Senior Nuclear Engineer. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 154 SEARS. Patrick.-NRC.former Maine Yankee Project Manager....... 131, 147 l
[ SLIFER, Bruce, YAEC Senior Titled Engineer.................... 150 L
i SUN, Summer, NRC Reactor Engineer (NRR)....................... 145 l
l SUNDARAM, Ramu, YAEC Manager LOCA Group....................... 124, 159 f
l SWANBON, Glenn, YAEC LOCA Engineer.......... ................. '156 l
l THAYER. Jay. YAEC Vice President, Projects.................... 151 l
l WESSMAN, Richard, NRC Chief of the Mechanical l Engineering Branch (NRR).................-................... 136 WHITTIER, George, MYAPCo Vice President, Licensing and Engineering................................................. 130, 167 L ZWOLINSKI, John, NRC Deputy Director of Reactor
! Projects (NRR).............................................. 143 l-i Case No. 1-95-050 12
l I
DETAILS OF INVESTIGATION
- Apolicable Reaulations
- 1 1
10 CFR 50.5 Deliberate misconduct. I l 10 CFR 50.9 Completeness and accuracy of information.
10 CFR 50,36 Technical specifications.
10 CFR 50.46 Acceptance criteria for emergency core cooling systems for light water nuclear power reactors.
10 CFR 50.59 Changes, tests and experiments.
i 10 CFR 50, Appendix K ECCS Evaluation Models.
Puroose of Investication On December 6,1995, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's (NRC) Office of
, Investigations (01), Region I, initiated this investigation in response to l
anonymous allegations that were made aublic in early December 1995, regarding, among other things, the adequacy of t1e Emergency Core Cooling System (ECCS) l at the Maine Yankee (MY) Atomic Power Station, Wiscasset, Maine. Generally, it was alleged that the Maine Yankee Atomic Power Company (MYAPCo), in concert with Yankee Atomic Electric Company (YAEC), knowingly performed inadecuate small break loss-of coolant accident (SBLOCA) analyses of the ECCS anc deliberately misre) resented the analyses to the NRC. Specifically, the OI investigation soug1t to determine: (1) whether MYAPCo deliberately failed to implement, for fuel Cycles 12 and 13, the RELAP5YA SBLOCA analysis, as accepted and approved by the NRC in a January 1989 Safety Evaluation Report (SER): and (2) if the RELAP5YA computer code was deliberately im)1emented in June 1993, for Cycle 14, in a manner that did not conform with t1e SER and the requirements of 10 CFR 50.46 (Exhibits 1, 2, 15, and 16).
l Backaround MYAPCo is the holder of facility Operating License No. DPR-36, issued on September 15, 1972, by the Atomic Energy Commission, aredecessor to the NRC, pursuant to 10 CFR Part 50. The license authorizes t1e operation of MY in accordance with conditions specified therein. MY is a three-loop pressurized-water reactor (PWR) designed by Combustion Engineering (CE).
l MYAPCo was initially authorized to operate MY at a power level of 2440 Megawatt Thermal (MWt). During Cycle 3 operation, MYAPCo in an application dated August 1, 1977, requested an increase in the maximum thermal power rating to 2630 MWt. On June 20, 1978, the NRC issued Licen.se Amendment No.
39, which authorized MYAPCo to operate MY at 2630 MWt. On December 28, 1988, at the beginning of Cycle 11 operation, MYAPCo again requested NRC to amend its license to increase the plant's maximum thermal power rating to 2700 MWt; the NRC granted the amendment request on July 10, 1989.
The MY ECCS design was originally evaluated based on a CE ECCS/LOCA analysis for 2440 MWt in 1972. The August 1977 power uprate request was again based on l
Case No. 1 95-050 13 l
l
a CE ECCS/LOCA analysis. On September 22, 1977 MYAPCo in conformance with an NRC Order dated August 29, 1977, submitted the results of a CE SBLOCA ECCS performance evaluation for MY with a peak cladding temperature (PCT) of
-1348 F.
In November 1980, the NRC issued NUREG-0737, " Clarification of TMI Action Plan Requirements" (Exhibit 11), which incorporates all Three Mile Island (TMI) related items approved for implementation by the Commission following the accident at TMI. Items II.K.3.30 and II.K.3.31, respectively, provide guidance for SSLOCA analysis methods and plant specific SBLOCA analysis.
On January 14, 1983, YAEC submitted licensing Topical Report YAEC-1300P (Exhibit 12), which referenced MYAPCo's license and docket numbers, for computer program RELAP5YA to be used to analyze the PWR small break spectrum in a manner that conformed to the requirements contained in 10 CFR 50.46 and ,
, Appendix K to Part 50. RELAPSYA was also to be used for the licensi .g analyses to close out TMI Action Items II.K.3.5, II.K.3.30, and II.K.3.31.
During the period 1984 through 1988, YAEC responded to NRC requests for additional information, answering approximately 200 questions in order to complete the approval process for RELAPSYA. On January 15, 1988, YAEC submitted the final version of RELAP5YA to the NRC for approval.
In January 1989, the NRC issued an SER (Exhibit 13) that established that RELAP5YA was acceptable, under certain conditions, as a licensing method for use in meeting 10 CFR 50.46, Appendix K to Part 50, and NUREG 0737 Item II.K.3.30 for SBLOCA analyses at MY.
In a letter dated May 8, 1989, to MYAPCo (Exhibit 14), Patrick SEARS, the NRC Project Manager (PM) for MY, advised that item II.K.3.30 was closed by letter dated January 30, 1989, and that the MYAPCo computer program and model developed for the SBLOCA analysis "is" operational and would be used to develop the Cycle 12 fuel reload, therefore, item II.K.3.31 was closed.
For Cycles 12 and 13, the Core Performance Analysis Report (CPAR) continued to show reliance upon the CE SBLOCA analysis as the analysis of record. The MY Cycle 14 CPAR, dated April 1993 (Exhibit 10), was submitted on August 25, 1993, and stated that the SBL0CA was re-analyzed during Cycle 13 using the RELAPSYA computer code.
On December 5, 1995, the State of Maine forwarded an anonymous, undated letter (Exhibit 2) to the NRC that contained allegations of wrongdoing. It was received from the Union of r.oncerned Scientists (UCS) and alleged, in part, that YAEC deliberately falsified computer calculations to avoid disclosing that the plant's cooling system was inadequate to mitigate LOCAs.
On December 5, 1995, at an NRR Allegation Review Board (ARB) meeting, the Director, Division of Reactor Projects Management, NRR, requested OI assistance to an NRR led inspection at YAEC during the week of December 11, 1995.
On December 18, 1995, a transcribed public meeting was held with MYAPCo and YAEC at NRC Headquarters, and a delay in the MY plant startup was agreed upon.
. In February 1995 MY had been shut down for refueling and repairs to its steam generators.
Case No. 1-95-050 14
On January 2,1996, 0I met with the NRC's Office of the Inspector General (0IG), counsel for YAEC, and attorneys from Morgan, Lewis and Bockius LLP (ML&B) to coordinate the-ongoing NRC and licensee investigative activities regarding HYAPCo and YAEC. (ML&B represented MYAPCo and YAEC, as well as current and former employees of both companies during the OI investigation and conducted an independent investigation for MYAPCo/YAEC.)
On January 3,1996, the NRC issued to MYAPCo a Confirmatory Order, Suspending Authority For And Limiting Power Operation And Containment Pressure (Effective Immediately), and Demand For Information.
On January 5,1996, NRR formally requested an investigation by OI into allegations of wrongdoing by YAEC and MYAPCo. NRR informed OI that the application of RELAP5YA for the SBLOCA ECCS analysis performed for the MY Cycle 14 did not conform with the requirements of 10 CFR 50.46 (Exhibit 15).
On January 22, 1996. MYAPCo released the results of two internal
. investigations into the allegations. In summary, the MYAPCo/YAEC internal reports concluded that the current licensing basis for power operations at 2700 MWt was still valid.
On May 9 F S, 0I reviewed the ML&B draft report [ report dated May 21, 1996],
which in sa. wary found that: II.K.3.31 was specifically not part of an NRC Order or regulation; the May 8,1989, SEARS letter said II.K,3.31 was closed; and RELAP5YA was not used for Cycle 12. ML&B found the closure of II.K.3.31 to be acceptable and that there was no violation of 50.9.
On May 8,1996, the NRC:0IG issued an Event Incuiry Report (EIR) concerning the allegations at MYAPCo. The EIR disclosed ceficiencies in the NRC staff review and closure of TMI Action Items associated with MY. Concerning the licensee, the EIR also reported that: MYAPCo/YAEC did not comply with the January 1989 SER, and did not report changes and problems related to RELAP5YA, as required by 10 CFR 50.46. Further, the EIR reported that MYAPCo did not use RELAP5YA, as required by TMI action item II.K.3.31, and did not report to the NRC that PCTs exceeded 2200 F from 1989 to 1993.
The MYAPCo Fuel Cycle Schedule, dated October 25, 1993, lists the dates of the fuel cycles at MY (Cycle 12 (6/30/90 2/14/92); Cycle 13 (4/19/92 7/30/93);
and Cycle 14 (10/14/93 1/25/95)) (Exhibit 122).
Coordination with the NRC Staff On January 31, 1996, a coordination meeting with OE, OGC, OIG, and NRR was conducted in order to discuss the NRR investigative referral to 01, and to more specifically identify the proper focus of the requested 01 investigation.
On February 29, 1996, a revised referral memorandum from OI to NRR, articulated the issues for the OI investigation (Exhibit 16).
On May 14, 1996. OI requested guidance from OGC and NRR (Exhibit 17) regarding applicable NRC requirements and MYAPCo's need to comply with THI Actions Items II.K.3.30 and II.K.3.31.
On June 13 and 19, 1996, 0GC and NRR, respectively, responded to the OI
. ' questions (Exhibits 18 and 19).
Case No. 1 95 050 15
Allegation No.1: The SBLOCA analysis utilizing RELAP5YA, as approved by the NRC in a January 1989 SER, was deliberately not implemented from June 1990 through May 1993 (Cycles 12 and 13), thus failing to conform with 10 CFR 50.46.
. Evidence 1
i Pertinent Documentation l
, 1. A MYAPCo letter to the NRC, dated June 9, 1980, discussed "Five l Additional TMI 2 Related Requirements" and provided a tabulation of the
! requirements, including II.K.3.30 and II.K.3.31, with a commitment to implement II .K.3.31 ". . .to demonstrate compliance with 50.46. . ." within i
one year of NRC approval of the II.K.3.30 methods (Exhibit 21, pp.1-3).
l l 2. NUREG 0737, identifies Post TMI requirements and incorporates all TMI-l related items approved for implementation by the Commission, including II.K.3.30 and II.K.3.31. Item II.K.3.30 requested licensees to submit l to NRC for approval a revised [ emphasis added by OI] SBLOCA analysis method, and Item II.K.3.31 requested licensees to submit for approval.
within one year of NRC acceptance of the analysis method (II.K.3.30),
I the plant specific SBLOCA analysis using the revised method as described
! in Item II.K.3.30 to show compliance with 10 CFR 50.46 (Exhibit 11, pp. 1 8).
- 3. A MYAPCo letter to the NRC, dated December 15, 1980, detailed the
" Confirmation of Post =TMI Requirement Implementation Dates," and provided a commitmF.it to an implementation schedule for II.K.3.30 and II.K.3.31. The l'.cter noted MYAPCo's intention to demonstrate compliance with 10 CFR 50.46 using the improved methodology addressed in l II.K.3.30 Gplied on a plant specific basis, within one year after NRC l approval e,- SBLOCA methods (II. (.3.30) (Exhibit 23).
l 4. A YAEC letter to NRC, dated January 14, 1983, titled "RELAP5YA Computer Program to Analyze BWR Full Break Spectrum and PWR Small Break Spectrum," formally submitted RELAP5YA for approval. The letter explained that YAEC will use RELAPSYA as a major part of its methodology to analyze the entire BWR break spectrum and the PMR__small break soectrum [ emphasis added by 01] in a manner that conformed to requirements contained in 10 CFR 50.46 and Appendix K. The letter stated, among other things, that the RELAP5YA code would be used for licensing analyses for SBLOCA PWR core reloads and to close out NUREG-0737 issues (II.K.3.5. II.K.3.30, and II.K.3.31) (Exhibit 12, pp. 1 and 2).
- 5. An NRC letter to MYAPCo, dated March 14, 1983, transmitted an NRC Order confirming MYAPCo's commitments to implement post-TMI items. In particular, the Order noted that the staff review of the generic models under II.K.3.30 had not been completed and that II.K.3.31 was not required until one year after staff approval of the generic model under II.K.3.30. An attachment excluded II.K.3.30 and II.K.3.31 from the Order (Exhibit 27, pp. 1, S. and 11).
AGENT'S NOTE: This Order excluded various items, including II.K.3.30 and II.K.3.31, and provided the explanation for not Case No. 1-95 050 16 l
l
I including them, i.e., the NRC's review of II.K.3.30 was not yet I completed. l l 6. Handwritten notes from YAEC files, dated April 1983, depict MYAPCo's i pump trip study problems related to RELAP5YA runs. The notes relate ;
that in all pump trip studies, RELAP5 over predicts ECC bypass (Exhibit 28).
, 7. An NRC letter to MYAPCo, dated April 15, 1986, transmitted an SER titled l
" Maine %qkee Reactor Coolant Pump Trip." The SER indicates the I
RELAPr ,com3 uter program was used to perform both the BE and EM SBLOCA anal :s. T1e SER stated that the NRC had not yet issued a final report on the acceptability of RELAP5YA as a SBLOCA EM in conformance with 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix K (Exhibit 29, p. 4). '
- 8. A YAEC letter to NRC, dated June 30, 1987, on Pro 30 sed Rulemaking on 1 ECCS, provided comments to the NRC and endorsed t1e proposed rule I changes to 10 CFR 50.46 (Exhibit 30).
AGENT'S NOTE: The most significant change to 50.46 in October 1988 allowed for use of a realistic calculation plus uncertainties. A realistic calculation is a BE calculation. Prior to this time, the LOCA EM had to comply with Appendix K.
- 9. A MYAPCo memorandum, dated Seatember 9, 1987, from JORDAN to WHITTIER, depicts a discussion on how t1e CE Owners Group (CE0G) SBLOCA applies l directly to MY's SBLOCA analysis (Exhibit 31). A MYAPCo memorandum, I dated October 15, 1987, recommends using the CE0G SBLOCA methodology to satisfy II.K.3.31 and dropping the LOCA work [RELAPSYA]: a cost comparison was used to support the argument (Exhibt. 32). A MYAPCo j letter to NRC, from WHITTIER, dated December 7.1987, sought closecut of l II.K.3.30 and II.K.3.31 by use of the CEOG SBLOCA methodology (Exhibit 33).
- 10. A YAEC internal memorandum, dated February 10. 1988,
Subject:
"NRC Meeting on SBLOCA with MYAPCo and CE," indicates that the " bottom line" I is the NRC will not accept CE's justification to use the CEOG SBLOCA l method for MY (Exhibit 35). l
- 11. A YAEC letter to NRC, dated January 15, 1988, submitted the final ,
version of RELAP5YA and indicates the RELAP5YA program had been (
completed in satisfaction of the requirements of TMI Action Item i II.K.3.30 (Exhibit 34). l
- 12. A YAEC memorandum, dated March 8, 1988, from SCHULTZ to SLIFER,
Subject:
"Telecons on RELAP5YA for PWR SBLOCA: March 2, and 3, 1988," summarizes telephone conversations with the NRC regarding restrictions in application of RELAP5YA. Also, attached is a draft Technical Evaluation l Report (TER) detailing restrictions for approval of RELAP5YA, including j the restriction that required justification for the selection of options ;
for the analysis. YAEC's response to that restriction was that it was ;
" Acceptable" (Exhibit 36). I
- 13. Numerous YAEC internal memoranda, from ANDERSON, reference an "NSD Performance Evaluation Matrix." One dated March 17, 1988, included an Case No. 1 95-050 17
area of concern, identified as, " Development of SBLOCA model has not gone well . " The comment originated from MYAPCo for the 1987 "end of year" evaluation. Additional comments include: "YNSD's RELAP5YA results were not satisfactory for MY. Code improvements don't seem to help."
Listed as an action taken, was that YNSD was working with MY and CE to
, provide a " licensing solution" and to " stall" for a BE solution (Exhibit 37).
4 Another memorandum, dated August 26, 1988, relates that SBLOCA was in a
" wait and see" mode with the NRC and indicates the concern would continue to be followed (Exhibit 38),
l Another YAEC memorandum, from ANDERSON, dated November 10, 1988, describes the same concern with SBLOCA as previously documented, and indicates that YAEC was evaluating alternatives, including providing a
" licensing solution," and that they might have to pursue a "Best Estimate" approach to the calculation for resolution. The memorandum 1 further indicates that an SER on the Yankee methods had been received l and that a one year clock was started. Lastly, it indicates that when the concerns were resolved, those concerns would be removed from the l matrix (Exhibit 39).
Another memorandum, dated January 31, 1989, repeats the SBLOCA concern identified in the previous matrices (Exhibit 40).
AGENT'S NOTE: It is noteworthy that in January 1989, the NRC approved RELAP5YA as the revised SBLOCA method with an SER that contained 12 conditions. As will be evident, infra, problems with the RELAPSYA code continued after approval.
Another YAEC memorandum, from ANDERSON, dated November 1, 1989, repeats the SBLOCA concerns previously documented in matrices. Further, YAEC pro 30 sed an evaluation based on a "Best Estimate" method similar to the
-Yan(ee Rowe (YR) approach: the program was to be executed in 1989 with MY's approval . A notation indicates that the evaluation method had been approved by the NRC and that the NRC considered this issue closed pending completion of a Cycle 12 calculation, which was scheduled to be completed in the summer of 1990 (Exhibit 41).
- Another YAEC memorandum from ANDERSON, dated October 5, 1990, cites continuing disappointment in the SBLOCA development. It discloses that RELAP5YA EM results were not satisfactory, that Yankee had completed SBLOCA commitments under TMI items II.K.3.30 and II.K.3.31, and that margin remained very limited (Exhibit 42).
YAEC memoranda dated April 24, 1991 (Exhibit 43), January 31, 1992 (Exhibit 44), August 26, 1992 (Exhibit 45), and March 4, 1993 (Exhibit 46), all repeat the concern with the SBLOCA model development.
The August 26, 1992, memorandum also indicates that the RELAP5YA EM model had, under certain conditions, demonstrated instabilities caused by either thermal hydraulic ahenomena or code numerical solution algorithm and that these pro 31 ems had prevented successful analysis of a full break spectrum for MY's SBLOCA. Accordingly, the maximum SBLOCA margins would be achieved using the BE LOCA methodology.
J Case No. 1 95 050 18
- y. -- - , - - -
. . _ . _. _ ~ __ _ _ . ___ __
AGENT'S NOTE: Additional evaluations of YNSD by MYAPCo were reviewed by OI for the years 1987 through 1995. These evaluations were transmitted by FRIZZLE to YAEC and rated the departments that made up YNSD, including the MY Projects Department at YAEC, and the Nuclear Engineering Department (NED) that encompassed the LOCA Group. MYAPCo's overall rating for those groups, through all the
! years reviewed, was "very good" to " excellent," with the majority of
! the ratings being " excellent." The 1987 evaluation includes the l SBLOCA development concern. Of note is a comment for the 1991 l rating year, that the YAEC Projects Department maintained l " excellent" communications with MY. An issue in this investigation is the extent and detail of communications between YAEC and the
! licensee (MYAPCo). These documents are not included as exhibits, l but are available for review.
l 14. An NRC letter to YAEC, dated October 14, 1988, describes the acceptance l for Topical Report YAEC 1300P, and the fact that the NRC found RELAPSYA acceptable, under certain conditions, as a licensing method for use in meeting 10 CFR 50.46, Appendix K to Part 50, and NUREG 0737 Item
, II.K.3.30 for the SBLOCA analysis for MY, The NRC's SER approving l RELAPSYA listed twelve conditions, including specifications for future l plant specific licensing submittals justifying the options taken and sensitivity studies performed (Exhibit 47).
- 15. An NRC letter, docketed on January 17, 1989, to MYAPCo's FRIZZLE, refers to the acceptance of Topical Report YAEC 1300P, and includes the limitations [ conditions) for RELAP5YA. The letter transmitted the NRC's SER on RELAP5YA (the same SER that was sent to YAEC on October 14, 1988)
(Exhibit 13).
- 16. A facsimile document, dated January 19, 1989, transmitted by SEARS to l EVANS /WHITTIER, provided a draft letter from YAEC'S PAPANIC to NRC, i dated January 19, 1989. The draft letter discussed YAEC's approach for satisfying II.K.3.31 requirements for YR. The draft letter explained that the licensing analysis SBLOCA would consist of a limited EM analysis augmented by BE or previous licensing analyses (Exhibit 48).
AGENT'S NOTE: YAEC and MYAPCo personnel testified that they had planned on proceeding with MY's closure of II.K.3.31 in a similar fashion to that used by FAIRTILE for YR.
- 17. Handwritten notes, dated February 9, 1989, made by SCHULTZ, depict responses to KADAK's questions regarding the restrictions on using RELAP5YA and whether the " clock" started after MYAPCo received the NRC's SER in January 1989. SCHULTZ wrote that there were no " limitations" to restrict them from performing the type of analysis needed to address small break and that WHITTIER and SEARS had a verbal agreement that the
" clock" started in October [1988] with the issuance of the generic SER (Exhibit 52).
- 18. A typewritten note, dated February 10, 1989 (Exhibit 53), from WJM (METEVIA) to GDW (WHITTIER),
Subject:
"Small Break Strategy," discusses a BE/EM approach for SBLOCA analysis, and indicates, "The ball is in your court,"
Case No. 1 95 050 19 l
AGENT'S NOTE: Any BE/EM approach differs from that approved by the NRC in the January 1989 SER.
- 19. A Work Order Task Description Report by GHAUS [YAEC], dated March 13, 1989 (Exhibit 54), titled, "MY Small Break LOCA." refers to the BE/EM approach that would replace the conventional full scope EM analysis normally required by Appendix K. The work order specifies that the BE/EM approach needed to be discussed with the NRC and recuired NRC concurrence. A SUNDARAM handwritten note on this work orcer indicates that the schedule was slipping.
- 20. MYAPCo draft letters to NRC, dated April 10 A]ril 28 May 15, and May 19, 1989, all concern TMI Action Items II.(.3.30 and II.K.3.31 and the use of RELAP5YA. [These drafts were never sent to NRC.] They discuss an approach designed to limit the number of evaluation model calculations through the use of a BE approach for MY. The last two drafts (May 15 and 19, 1989) refer to a May 8, 1989. NRC letter, and indicate that the May 8,1989, letter stated that II.K.3.31 was closed by the method approved via II.K.3.30 [RELAP5YA], and that it would be used for the Cycle 12 reload. WHITTIER and HETEVIA are listed as the cognizant individuals (Exhibit 55, pp. 7 and 10).
- 21. A MYAPCo letter to the NRC, signed by NICHOLS, dated April 18, 1989, explains that a plant saecific calculation using the revised methods
[RELAP5YA] established ay II.K.3.30, is expected the first quarter of 1990 (Exhibit 56).
- 22. An NRC letter to MYAPCo's FRIZZLE, from SEARS, dated May 8, 1989 (Exhibit 14),
Subject:
" Maine Yankee Implementation of Small Break (LOCA) analysis, NUREG 0737 II.K.3 30 and II.K.3.31 " advises that:
"By telecon May 5,1989 Mr. S. Nichols of Maine Yankee informed'me that your computer model and program you developed concerning Small Break LOCA analysis, 3er NUREG-0737 II.K.3.30 and II.K.3.31 is operational and will 3e used to develop your next fuel reload (Cycle 12) ."
"Since this constitutes imalementation, this closes item II.K.3.31.
Item II.K.3.30 was closed ay letter dated January 30, 1989. Thus, this completes NRC review of your small break LOCA analysis. Your computer program, its verification and implementation may, in the future, be the subject of an inspection by NRC."
AGENT'S NOTE: The NRC official record copy of this letter reflects that SEARS signed the letter out May 8, 1989, and concurred for his supervisor, WESSMAN, the same day. An undated MYAPCo Licensing -
Correspondence / Commitment Control Sheet (Exhibit 59) reflects the individuals who were on distribution for the SEARS letter of May 8, 1989.
i 23. Another copy of the same NRC letter from SEARS, dated May 8, 1989.
includes a handwritten note from Bill [METEVIA] to Ramu [SUNDARAM]
! indicating, "This isn't quite what we had in mind. Hopefully, it will i
be corrected soon. The letter you and RPJ [ JORDAN) worked on still j hasn't gone to NRC" (Exhibit 57).
I
( Case No. 1-95 050 20 l
1
, . . . . - . . -ve r , r ,
i
- 24. A copy of the May 8,1989, SEARS letter, received at the YAEC MY Project office on May 12, 1989, contains a handuritten note by Bruce [SLIFER] to Ramu [SUNDARAM] which reads, "Pete Anderson is trying to straighten out.
Don't do any thing different than previously planned" (Exhibit 58).
- 25. A MYAPCo memorandum, dated August 22, 1989, from NICHOLS to WHITTIER, details a plan to have weekly discussions with NRC's new PM [ LEEDS]
(Exhibit 62).
- 26. NRC documents reflecting the tracking of the TMI Action Items include a l report dated June 8,1989, that indicates completion of II.K.3.30 on October 14, 1988, and the pending closure of II.K.3.31 on May 8, 1989, by MYAPCo (Exhibit 60). Also, an undated document notes that coding changes were being made, and there were open items remaining to be implemented (Exhibit 61).
- 27. A handwritten MYAPCo note, dated September 14, 1989, depicts a discussion between NICHOLS and LEEDS that the SBLOCA analysis for Cycle 12 would not start until Spring 1990. The note also indicates that the reload for Cycle 12 will go in January 1, 1990, and will use the old strategy [CE method] and that LEEDS would follow up with SEARS (Exhibit 63).
- 28. A MYAPCo memorandum, dated September 20, 1989, from NICHOLS to WHITTIER (Exhibit 64), reflects a NICHOLS' discussion with LEEDS on September 14, !
1989:
"He [ LEEDS] discussed Maine Yankee's plans for conducting small break LOCA analyses for Cycle 12 operation. I [NICHOLS] indicated we plan to conduct SBLOCA analyses for Cycle 12: however, the analysis work is not scheduled to start until the Spring of 1990.
Our reload ap)lication is scheduled for submittal to NRC in December of t1is year, and will include a SBLOCA review on the old methodology [CE]. I [NICHOLS] indicated that once we complete our review with the new methodology [RELAP5YA] we will retain the results on site and then submit Cycle 13 application using the new methods. I [NICHOLS] also indicated that our plans are to use best estimates on deciding break size similar to what has been done at Yankee Rowe. Lastly, I [NICHOLS] indicated that we had discussed this matter with Pat Sears in June of this year. Eric [ LEEDS]
indicated he would follow up with Sears."
- 29. An NRC prebriefing document, dated October 1989, regarding MY, notes that for TMI Action Items II.K.3.30 and i .K.3.31, the status was that the licensee has delayed implementation until the next core reload, and forecasts implementation in late 1991/early 1992 (Exhibit 65).
- 30. A MYAPCo memorandum, dated October 6, 1989, from NICHOLS to WHITTIER (Exhibit 66) indicates that:
"Eric has discussed our alans for small break LOCA reviews for Cycle 12 (SEN 89-21) wit, Pat Sears and the technical reviewers.
The reviewers were concerned that justification may be necessary for not using the new code if the old code is less conservative. I
[NICHOLS] indicated that the new code was to be used for Cycle 12 l
Case No. 1 95 050 21
i i
but the analysis work is not scheduled to occur until after the reload package has been submitted. We had planned to document the results of this analysis with the Cycle 13 CPAR as it is convenient to do so. If necessary, however, we could submit the results following completion of the analysis. Eric was going to revisit this with the reviewer and get back to me."
- 31. A MYAPCo memorandum, dated October 12, 1989, from NICHOLS to WHITTIER (Exhibit 67), reflects the following NICHOLS' conversation with LEEDS:
"Mr. Leeds discussed our schedule for conducting small block LOCA reviews under II.K.3.31 methodology with the staff's technical reviewers (see SEN-89-26). Eric indicated that closecut of TMI action items has come under close scrutiny in the recent past, and he will need a letter [ emphasis added by 0I] from Maine Yankee documenting our schedule for Cycle 12 SBLOCA reviews. The letter should specify our schedular constraints, justify use of the old methodology versus new and explain the similarities between Rowe's SBLOCA submittal (expected 12/89) and Maine Yankee's."
- 32. NRC Director's Highlights. POI-3, dated October 18, 1989, documents that the NRC was informed that MYAPCo would not implement the II.K.3.30 and II.K.3.31 SBLOCA analysis for Cycle 12: that MYAPCo recognized it had previously committed to complete the II.K.3.30 and II.K.3.31 analysis by A)ril/May 1990: and that MYAPCo would provide a submittal documentina t1e reason (s) for failure to imolement the analysis [em)hasis added by OI] and their plans for its future implementation (Exhi)it 68).
- 33. Draft MYAPCo letters (Exhibit 69) from WHITTIER to NRC, unsigned, all dated October 20, 1989.
Subject:
"Small Break LOCA Analysis" and/or
" Schedule for the II.K.3.31 SBLOCA analysis," contain various i handwritten comments from different employees of YAEC and MYAPCo. One draft, edited by NICHOLS, deletes a sentence concerning the one year period for the performance of the SBLOCA analysis [II.K.3.31], as well as a full paragraph concerning the analysis being documented to the NRC staff in a summary report in August 1990 (pp. 6 and 7). NICHOLS also changed the word " described" to "available" with respect to what to do with the results of the analysis for the NRC (p. 7). Also, an attachment depicts that R. JORDAN was the cognizant MY individual for this letter to the NRC (p. 3).
AGENT'S NOTE: None of the draft letters dated October 20, 1989, were transmitted to the NRC. Of note is the comment on the second page of all the drafts to, "... provide assurance that the entire spectrum of SBLOCA's are covered consistent with the requirements of 10 CFR 50.46." These drafts were reviewed by many key individuals at both MYAPCo and YAEC.
- 34. A facsimile transmittal from YAEC to MY, dated November 2, [1989]
encloses a note from McCANN to NICHOLS, and another version of the October 20, 1989, draft letter. This version describes that MY will
" temporarily" review the existing approved SBLOCA analysis [CE's] for applicability to Cycle 12. McCANN's note directs NICHOLS' attention to a portion of the letter which commits to a report to the NRC, with the Case No. 1 95 050 22
l caution that, "He [ ANDERSON] is not sure that you intend this to be so" f (Exhibit 70),
- 35. A.YAEC typewritten note, dated November 7, 1989. from McCANN to NICHOLS, provides another draft copy of the October 20, 1989, letter, unsigned, with SUNDARAM's comments, including the comment that he [SUNDARAM) would rather not get detailed in the technical discussion of the analysis / evaluation and that just comparing it to R0WE's submittal was sufficient (Exhibit 71) .
- 36. A draft internal YAEC memorandum, unsigned, dated December 7, 1989, from HETEVIA/SUNDARAM to ANDERSON /WHITTIER (Exhibit 72), provides a recommendation of an analytical ap3 roach and the schedule for addressing II.K.3.31 for MY. Specifically, t1e aaproach proposed is to use BE calculations to identify the limiting 3reak size and location, and to address sensitivity studies identified in the NRC's SER: EM calculations would then be performed at the-limiting break to form the licensing basis. The EM calculations will be 3erformed with input parameters and system assumptions that conform to t1e reculatory recuirements of 10 CFR i 50.46. Accendix l [ emphasis added by 0I].
l This memorandum also points out that this recommended approach differs from methods that the NRC has reviewed and approved for other plants in l resolving THI Action Item II.K.3.31 and concludes with the suggestion that, "since the approach is non-standard, we recommend that it be discussed with NRC to obtain concurrence. To provide a documented basis for small break LOCA analysis, we also reammend that when our analysis is completed, a summary report be submitted to NRC describing the method and defining the licensing basis. We expect our analysis to be completed by June 1, 1990 and a summary report prepared by August 1, 1990."
- 37. Excerpts from the MYAPCo Cycle 12 CPAR, dated December 18, 1989, as prepared by YAEC (Exhibit 3), identify the use of the CE method for the SBLOCA analysis for pycle 12. The CE analysis showed the limiting small break size as 0.5 ft (p.6). [This CPAR was submitted to NRC on January 16, 1990.]
- 38. A MYAPCo memorandum, dated December 19, 1989, NICHOLS to WHITTIER, states that "...I [NICHOLS] indicated to Eric [ LEEDS] that we have re prioritized our small break LOCA work and now ?lan to have the II.K.3.31 reviews done by June 1, 1990. I [NICH0_S] indicated this meets P. Sears
- letter of May 8,1989, and that we no longer need to send them a II.K.3.31 schedule. He [ LEEDS] agreed" (Exhibit 73).
- 39. A YAEC memorandum, dated January 2, 1990, from METEVIA/SUNDARAM to ANDERSON /WHITTIER (Exhibit 74),
Subject:
" Recommended A]proach for SBLOCA II.K.3.31," provides a different approach from t1e December 7,
, 1989, draft memorandum (see Exhibit 72). Specifically, the approach recommended on January 2nd includes EM calculations that would be performed with conservative input parameters and system assumptions to assure that EM calculations were at or greater than the 95% probability level. These calculations would form the licensing basis for SBLOCA analysis at MY. [This is a BE/EM non-Appendix K approach.] The memorandum points out that the approach differs from the NRC SER on Case No. 1 95 050 23
RELAP5YA and suggests that a summary report be submitted to the NRC describing the method and results to formalize the licensing basis.
This memorandum was to be provided to GARRITY, WHITTIER, and NICHOLS on January 3, 1990.
40, A YAEC memorandum, dated January 4, 1990, from ANDERSON to MYAPCo
[ believed to be GARRITY], with attachment (Exhibit 75), requests MYAPCo's decision on YNSD's recommended January 2, 1990, BE/EM approach for SBLOCA, II.K.3.31, supra. The recommendation response (RR) to this memorandum was accepted by GARRITY and approved the YNSD recommendation for the SBLOCA analysis. A note is contained in the RR block indicating
, that the SBLOCA approach proposed in the attachment was consistent with l- discussions NICHOLS had with the NRC on September 14, 1989, and December 6,1989 (See Exhibits 63 and 72, respectively).
AGENT'S NOTE: A review of NICHOLS' conversation records of September 14, 1989, and December 6, 1989, failed to indicate that the approach, as recommended on January 2, 1990, was ever discussed. :
- 41. A YAEC MY Projects Service Request (SR), Titled: "Small Break LOCA I II.K.3.31," dated January 10, 1990 (Exhibit 76), No. M-90 006, approves YAEC conducting the BE/EM analysis in accordance with the January 2.
I 1990, proposal, indicates the work was accepted by SLIFER on April 20, 1
1990, and shows that the SR was completed and closed out on April 11, l 1991. An excerpt from a YAEC MY Projects SR log for 1990, indicates that the request for a SBLOCA analysis under SR #90-006 was received at YAEC MY projects office on January 10, 1990, dated out May 7, 1990, and l l was completed on April 11, 1991, by LOCA 90 110: the cognizant engineer was listed as *BGS" [SLIFER] (Exhibit 77).
l AGENT'S NOTE: YAEC and MYAPCo documentation acquired by 01 during l this investigation, as well as testimony from officials of both companies, failed to clearly ex31ain the chain of events concerning i the request for the analysis, t1e completion of it, and when it was transmitted to MYAPCo.
- 42. Two sets of handwritten notes, one dated February 2, 1990, the other undated [both by SUNDARAM] (Exhibit 78), titled, "MYAPCo SBLOCA Meeting," describe scoping calculations that show that RELAP5YA, used as approved by NRC (i.e., as conforming to Appendix K), will yield very l l high PCT, close to 2200 F +/ delta. SUNDARAM described that the l licensing status was to complete the SBLOCA licensing analysis for l Cycle 12 by June 1,1990, and retain the calculation in house and l provide a summary report to MYAPCo. The second page of the undated notes has the phrase " sensitive page" at the top, and underneath it is the indication of the very high PCTs (p. 8).
- 43. A YAEC memorandum, dated June 1, 1990 (Exhibit 79, p. 1), from SUNDARAM to ANDERSON, indicates the SBLOCA analysis for MY to address II.K.3.31 2
had been completed and the analysis identified a 0.4 ft limiting break.
AGENT'S NOTE: YAEC Calculation No: MYC-1287 was requested from YAEC in August 1996 and reviewed by 01 after the interview phase of this investigation had concluded. Page 1 of the 559 page file [not included in exhibits but maintained in the OI:RI office] notes the Case No. 1 95 050 24
original SBLOCA analysis for MY was prepared by SWANBON on November 13, 1990, reviewed by SCHOR on November 13, 1990, and approved by SUNDARAM on November 30, 1990. Page 2 reflects a comment by SCHOR that her review was performed in parallel with the calculation and that all the review comments were incorporated.
These three documents, in combination with Exhibit 82, demonstrate that the actual date the SBLOCA analysis was com31eted to meet the II.K.3.31 deadline of June 1,1990, is questiona31e (Exhibit 79, pp. 2 and 3).
- 44. A YAEC memorandum, dated June 6, 1990, from SUNDARAM to the LOCA group (Exhibit 80), indicates that the planned SBLOCA analysis had been completed, a BE break spectrum analysis showed a 0.4 ft2 break was i limiting, and supporting calculations to justify the licensing basis l were to be documented in a re3 ort by August 1, 1990 (p. 1). Further, the June highlights reflect t1at the RELAP5YA SBLOCA analysis results !
were reviewed with MY projects and a strategy to improve the results was i i approved'and was to be implemented (p. 3). I i 4
- 45. A YAEC memorandum, dated August 1, 1990 (Exhibit 82), from SUNDARAM to ANDERSON, encloses the summary report titled: " Maine Yankee Small Break Loss-of Coolant Accident (SBLOCA) Analysis to Address Three-Mile Island Action Item II.K.3.31." This analysis depicts the2 BE/EH approach taken
[una) proved by the NRC] and it identifies 0.4 ft as the limiting small brea( (pp. 1-4).
AGENT'S NOTE: Noteworthy is the fact that this summary report was never sent to the NRC, and unlike the Yankee Rowe summary report (Exhibit 81), which was also completed by the YAEC LOCA Group, the MY report does not specifically address each of the 12 conditions delineated in the SER for the use of RELAPSYA, j t
l 46. A YAEC memorandum, dated August 2, 1990,
Subject:
" July Highlights" from SUNDARAM to ANDERSON (Exhibit 83), indicates that the MYAPCo SBLOCA ;
analysis report will be transmitted to MYAPCo. The l
- " October Highlights." dated November 13, 1990, discusses a scoping '
! evaluation using ANF methods that resulted in a more limiting scenario i than the previous analysis (Exhibit 84). I l 47. A MYAPCo request to the NRC for Technical Specification (TS) Amendment l No. 151, dated November 5, 1990 (Exhibit 5), seeks the elimination of l Cycle specific limits from the MY tech specs. This proposal provides an I
exam)le of a COLR utilizing Cycle 12 operating limits. The TS lists RELA 35YA as an approved analysis method (p. 32), and the representative ,
Cycle 12 COLR indicates that the values and limits for Cycle 12 were I derived from NRC approved methodologies (p. 40).
AGENT'S NOTE: The CE method, not RELAP5YA, was used for the Cycle 12 reload.
- 48. Handwritten notes from BOYNTON's files, dated January 8,1991, titled,
" Status of Key Maine Yankee Work Items in LOCA Group (Exhibit 85)," l identify the following: "(1) YAEC analysis for Cycle 12 based on BE l break spectrum with bounding cale at limiting break (0.4 ftz ) to form the licensing basis... (4) Cycle 13 workscope in planning stage
! Case No. 1-95-050 25 l
(1) Do Appendix K based EM analysis with YAEC methods using what we learned from ANF. (2) If PCT <2200 F, we have option of (a) using it to I form licensing ' basis or (b) sticking with the BE bounding analysis l
(3) If PCT >2200 F, we stay with the BE bounding analysis..."
- 49. A YAEC memorandum, dated February 13, 1991, from SLIFER to KADAK (Exhibit 86), indicates the following: that YAEC met their commitment to MY to provide an analysis (see August 1,1990, analysis, Exhibit 82);
supporting Cycle 12 operation based on an approach worked out between MYAPCo (NICHOLS) and the NRC: that YAEC also worked with ANF to do an I analysis using their methods but results were basically the same i.e.,
l very little margin using a strict Appendix K approach; that NED would continue to pursue this issue vigorously, and that it would still be the number one issue at MYAPCo and a department goal: that YAEC's plan in 1991 was to continue to refine their current approved methodology (RELAP5YA) and the MY model for application to the Cycle 13 reload analysis; that YAEC is also exploring possibilities for increasing Safety Injection Tank pressure and reducing radial peaking factor uncertainties: that YAEC intended to complete these studies by the end l of February, and that if the results were unsatisfactory. YAEC would exclusively pursue the "...best-estimate plus uncertainties" approach.
The above had been discussed with ANDERSON, BOYNTON, NICHOLS, and WHITTIER.
l AGENT'S NOTE: NED management was aware of the problems encountered for the SBLOCA analysis and rated it as the No. 1 issue. The approach used for MY (i.e., BE/EM non Appendix K) was not submitted, reviewed, or accepted by NRC.
- 50. YAEC handwritten notes, dated February 14, 1991, from B0YNTON's files (Exhibit 87), indicate the following: thatscopingworkinAppendixK analysis showed a final PCT of 2195"F at .20 ft and that low steam generator pressure could adversely impact SBLOCA analysis.
AGENT'S NOTE: The fact that BOYNTON had this document in his files confirms that MYAPCo was informed of SBLOCA analysis results and the steam generator pressure issue / concern, which later became the topic of a 10 CFR 50.59 evaluation.
- 51. An NRC memorandum to file, dated August 30, 1996, describes a NRR review of an evaluation of the effects of MY's reduced steam generator pressure, as analyzed by GHAUS. GHAUS used the August 1990 SBLOCA analysis as the licensing basis to conduct the evaluation, even though the August 1990 analysis was not an acceptable / approved licensing basis analysis (Exhibit 95).
Interviews I. The following current and former NRC employees were interviewed by NRC:0I (or jointly by OI and the NRC:0IG) on the dates indicated regarding Allegation No. 1.
Case No. 1 95 050 26
i Name Position Date of' Interview j l
Patrick M. SEARS NRC, (former) Maine Yankee February 22, 1996 :
Project Manager May 30, 1996 Morton B. FAIRTILE NRC, Senior Project Manager March 6, 1996 l M. Wayne h0DGES NRC, Director, Division of March 6, 1996 Systems Technology, Office of Research Cornelius F. HOLDEN NRC, Senior Reactor Operations March 7, 1996 Engineer o Eric LEEDS NRC, Nuclear Materials Safety March 13, 1996 l and Safeguards, Section Leader l Richard H. WESSMAN NRC, NRR, Chief M?chanical March 13, 1996 l
Engineering Branch l Laurence PHILLIPS NRC, NRR, Chief, BWR Section, May 1, 1996 Reactor Systems Branch John ZWOLINSKI NRC, NRR, Deputy Director, ,
Reactor Projects May 10, 1996 Summer SUN NRC, NRR, Reactor Engineer May 23, 1996 Madeline RUSHBROOK NRC former NRR, Branch .
j Technical Assistant May 24, 1996' l l Interview of SEARS (Exhibit 131)
SEARS testified that he was the NRC MY PM from 1983/1984 until 1990 [actually mid 1989] ()p. 4 and 5), and that WHITTIER and NICHOLS were_his MYAPCo '
contacts: t1ey spoke telephonically approximately once a day (p. 7). He said if the May 8, 1989, letter was incorrect, MYAPCo should have sent something back to correct the docket (p. 20). Regarding the May 8, 1989, letter, SEARS said " operational" meant the code was running (p. 21). The intent of the letter was to advise MY that they did not need to submit information concerning the SBLOCA analysis, but to hold it for later inspection. The l letter did not relieve MYAPCo of the responsibility to submit reloads, nor was it intended to supersede the SER (pp. 30 and 31). He did not know that MYAPCo did not use RELAP5YA for Cycle 12, and was surprised to find that out because i he thought HYAPCo was in a hurry to use the code (pp. 55, 56, and 57). It was i SEARS' normal practice to have a technical reviewer with him when he spoke on the telephone with MYAPCo (p. 64).
If SEARS had been informed by MYAPCo about problems with RELAP5YA he would
- have immediately informed H0DGES (p. 79). If SEARS had known something was wrong with the code, the May 8,1989, letter would not have been sent (p. 82).
i As to any actions prior to the issuance of the NRC SER, it would not have been necessary to inform the NRC, but changes afterwards should have been communicated (pp. 84 and 85).
Case No. 1 95 050 27
I l
SEARS did not r'.: call a conversation with LEEDS in June 1989, as referenced in the October 6, 1989, NICHOLS memorandum of conversation (p. 99), or any conversations about SBLOCA or RELAP5YA with LEEDS (pp.101 and 102). He thought that MYAPCo understood they would have to comply with the January 1989 SER (p. 109). He opined that it almost looks as though MYAPCc requested that he send the May 8, 1989, letter (p. 110). SEARS did not feel there was a reluctance on the part of MYAPCo to contact him, nor did he recall anyone from MYAPCo or YAEC contacting him about the May 8, 1989 letter (pp. 115-117).
Re interview of SEARS (Exhibit 147)
SEARS advised that he would not have signed the May 8,1989, letter to MYAPCo '
if he was not allowed to do so by 3rotocol. SEARS' apparent understanding from NICHOLS on May 5, 1989, was clat MYAPCo was going to implement RELAPSYA, as approved by the NRC, because NICHOLS apparently reported to him that the computer model and program developed for SBLOCA was going to be used to develop the Cycle 12 reload. If that was true, tNn a specific submittal was not . required since the analysis was completed in accordance with the conditions of the SER. SEARS said that any SBLOCA analysis that was different from the January 1989 SER required justificatio;1 and approval by the NRC. Had SEARS known there was a deviation from the NRC approved method, he would have required a submittal from MYAPCo to justify the cnange. SEARS added that if the licensee had any questions concerning the May 8, 1989, letter, it was incumbent upon the licensee to rectify the matter. SEARS admitted that it may have been a mistake not to have required a submittal in regards to the May 8, 1989, letter, but he reiterated that the licensee a)parently asserted that RELAPSYA was going to be utilized, as approved by t1e SER.
Interview of H0DGES (Exhibit 133)
H0DGES signed out the October 14, 1988, letter approving RELAP5YA (p. 8). The RELAP5YA code was approved as an A)pendix K 10 CFR 50.46 method, but not as a BE method (p. 10). The CE code, w11ch was approved prior to THI, could not be used to close out II.K.3.30 (pp. 43 and 45). H0DGES also said the use of BE was never approved for MYAPCo (p. 52). H0DGES does not believe the NRC approved a combination of BE and EM for anyone, in that the BE/EM analysis was not an acceptable analysis and did not meet 10 CFR 50.46 criter'.a (pp. 56 60).
Interview of LEEDS (Exhibit 135)
LEEDS said he was the NY PM from October 1,1989 [actually about August 1989],
through September 30, 1990, and he interfaced primarily with NICHOLS (p. 4).
LEEDS said THI Action Items were not on his PM's report because they were closed (p. 18). LEEDS said he did not recall discussions with MYAPCo about the use of RELAP5YA (p. 26), but if PCTs exceeded 2200 F the licensee should have notified the NRC (pp. 34 and 35). LEEDS said that if RELAP5YA was not working, and something was on the docket in error, then MYAPCo was obligated to correct the information (p. 39). He stated that MYAPCo should have written a letter for the docket indicating they were not going to use RELAPSYA for Cycle 12 (p. 49). LEEDS reviewed the NICHOLS memo, dated October 6, 1989, but did not recall the conversation (pp. 63-65). LEEDS is confident that MYAPCo never told him there was a problem with RELAPSYA (p. 99).
Case No. 1-95-050 28 4
. _ _ _ _ _ _ . m.. m ._ _ _ - . . _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ . _
l l
' Interview of WESSMAN (Exhibit 136)
WESSMAN said he was SEARS supervisor when the May 8, 1989, letter was signed out for him, by SEARS. WESSMAN was in travel on May 8.1989 (pp. 7 and 8).
WESSMAN could not recall if SEARS was officially the acting supervisor on that day. WESSMAN stated that a closecut of a TMI Action Item should be more detailed than a single letter (pp. 11 and 12). He further advised that the technical branch should have had some input into the closure, but he did not see any such indication in or on the May 8,1989, letter (pp.16 and 17). He believes that SEARS worked with the technical branches on most SERs and evaluations (p.18).
l WESSMAN said the January 17, 1989-(see Exhibit 13), letter that accompanied the SER was not a closure document, but rather it identified limits
[ conditions] (p. 44). He did not interpret the May 8, 1989, letter, or the preceding January 17, 1989, letter, as closing II.K.3.30 (pp. 45 and 47).
WESSMAN said there should have been more information than just the SER, and the May 8,1989, letter, to deal with the conditions identified in the SER (pp. 50 and 51). WESSMAN opined that the licensee should have informed the NRC if the May 8,1989, letter contained misinformation (pp. 54 and 55).
Interview of RUSHBROOK (Exhibit 146)
L RUSHBROOK said that SEARS would not have signed for WESSMAN if he was not authorized to do so. She believes that, it is more likely than not, that SEARS was the acting supervisor when he signed the May 8, 1989, letter for WESSMAN.
Interviews of the followina NRC emplovees are also included as exhibits to this recort: M. FAIRTILE (Exhibit 132), C. HOLDEN (Exhibit 134), L. PHILLIPS (Exhibit 142), J. ZWOLINSKI (Exhibit 143), and S. SUN (Exhibit 145).
II. The following former MYAPCo/YAEC employees were interviewed by NRC:0I on the dates indicated regarding Allegation No. 1.
Name Position Date of Interview Ausaf HUSAIN former LOCA Manager, YAEC February 9. 1996
- Hugo DaSILVA former LOCA Engineer YAEC April 2, 1996 Robert H. NELSON former Manager, Plant April 9, 1996 Technical Services, MYAPCo Quazi HAQUE former LOCA Engineer, YAEC April 10, 1996 Thomas FERNANDEZ former LOCA Engineer YAEC April 16, 1996 l James N. LOOMIS former LOCA Engineer, YAEC April 16, 1996 Jamelle GHAUS former Nuclear Engineer, YAEC May 16, 1996 I
l Case No. 1 95 050 29 I
George PAPANIC former Licensing Engineer, YAEC June 5, 1996 John H. GARRITY former Vice President, MYAPCo August 7, 1996 Interview of NELSON (Exhibit 1381 NELSON did not recall working on the RELAPSYA code, and he had no independent memory of hearing about high PCTs or the need to inform the NRC about such.
NELSON never experienced a situation where an NRC SER was superseded by an NRC PM's letter.
Interview of GARRITY (Exhibit 169)
GARRITY was the MY Plant Manager from 1984 through 1987, becoming an assistant vice president (VP), and then a VP. He was VP from 1989 until the Fall of 1990(p.10). GARRITY said that YAEC proposed the plan to develop the RELAP5(A code (p. 14). He did not specifically recall elevated PCTs with the I
development of RELAP5YA, but did recall issues that required engineering l resolution (J. 16). GARRITY said that the receipt of an SER was a favorable l outcome in t1e progression of events in the process of the NRC review of a technical submittal. In general, the issuance of an SER was a step towards l completion of an action item, but not necessarily indicative of closure of l that item (p. 19).
GARRITY said the MY SER on RELAP5YA seemed to be only an intermediate milestone that would require a lot of interaction with the NRC (p. 22).
GARRITY did not recall specific discussions about SEARS' May 8,1989, letter, l but it appeared that the action items were closed by the letter (p. 27).
GARRITY explained that to obtain an analysis of record the licensee would have to place it on the docket and get an approval back from the NRC: at that point, the analysis became the basis for ongoing operation of the plant (p. 47). GARRITY stated that for a BE/EM method to be an acceptable approach, I it would have to be properly presented to the NRC, and the NRC would have to agree that it met regulatory requirements (p. 55).
l
! Interview of HUSAIN (Exhibit 125)
HUSAIN was the manager of the YAEC LOCA group from 1978 until October 1986 (p. 9). HUSAIN said the purpose of RELAP5YA was to complete a spectrum of l breaks for the SBLOCA and establish the limiting transient. HUSAIN worked on l- II.K.3.30, which was the model development required by the NRC, and which would later be used for licensing (p. 25). HUSAIN said that once the model was submitted to the NRC, the usual practice was to do the analysis on the l
model, but if there had been any changes made to the model, they would specify l
those changes in the analysis (p. 31).
HUSAIN said that once the code was ap3 roved by the NRC, no changes to the code that resulted-in more than 20 d fference could be made without NRC l approval. He advised that, if such changes were made, NRC would need to approve the model if it was going to be relied on for operation of the plant.
HUSAIN opined that everyone in the LOCA group had knowledge of Appendix K Case No. 1 95 050 30
l recuirements because it was part of the YAEC indoctrination program (pp. 33 anc 34).
HUSAIN said that for major changes to RELAP5YA YAEC had to insure that the changes were already approved before using them for licensing: therefore, NRC would be informed in advance about the changes (p. 51). HUSAIN said it would normally take about six months to do a " full blown analysis" (on Yankee Rowe),
l and if the analysis was required to operate the plant for the next reload, they would need to begin the analysis six months before submittal to NRC.
HUSAIN advised that, when using a new model, MYAPCo/YAEC had to have approval before doing the work, so they had to make sure that NRC had plenty of time for the approval process to be factored into the planning (pp. 51 and 52). He saw no reason that YAEC would do what has been alleged (p. 62).
l Interview of DaSILVA (Exhibit 137_)
DaSILVA worked at YAEC from June 1984 through August 1988 and did not recall seeing any indications in the RELAPSYA code that PCTs exceeded 2200'F.
DaSILVA said that, while at YAEC, he never heard any " conspiracy dialogue" about the RELAP5YA code, as referenced in the anonymous allegations, and he never saw problems at YAEC as detailed in the allegations.
Interview of HA0VE (Exhibit 139) l HAQUE was at YAEC from 1986 through 1993, and used RELAPS MOD 3 to get a small break mode' running and for similar items (p. 5). He said RELAP did not work very well and further explained that "it bombed." He added that the computers i are faster now, which has helped since 1988. HAQUE said the RELAP5YA people l' had a hard time, a lot of headaches, and were not getting a " smooth ride (pp. 9 and 10).
l HAQUE said there was a rumor at YAEC that an engineer (NFI) thought the size of the ECCS resulted in the problems with RELAP5YA. HAQUE said, to his knowledge, the people in the LOCA group were not fraudulently manipulating data and input (pp. 14 and 15).
HAQUE said the LOCA manager would be responsible for knowing the requirements of 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix K, and 10 CFR 50.46 (p. 40). HAQUE opined that the LOCA group manager was also responsible for insuring that YAEC/MYAPCo complied with the RELAP5YA SER (p. 47).
HAQUE said he was not involved in the closure of TMI Action Items. He heard l about an NRC letter that had many people confused, but could not recall the details. He believes it was about an issue that was not totally resolved (pp. 67 and 68).
Interview of FERNANDEZ (Exhibit 140)
FERNANDEZ was employed at YAEC from August 1979 until December 31, 1993, and worked on tha development of RELAP5YA from 1986 through 1988. He did not recall there being a problem with PCTs when the pump trip study was completed, and he did not hear anything after that point that PCTs above 2200"F were being obtained (p. 63). FERNANDEZ recalls a general feeling, in about 1988.
Case No. 1-95 050 31 l
l
_. - _ . _ . _ .__ _ _ . __ .. ~ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ . _ _ .
I that progress had been made on RELAP5YA because the code was submitted to the i NRC for review and approval (pp. 68 and 69). )
FERNANDEZ recalls a sense that the SEARS' letter (May 8,1989) was different than expected. FERNANDEZ said the letter had come in, and as he understood it, the letter had apparently closed II.K.3.31. FERNANDEZ opined that the SEARS
- letter was curious because it eliminated the need to submit the II.K.3.31 analysis to the NRC (pp. 7178). l FERNANDEZ said 10 CFR 50.46 allows a licensee to follow either the new or revised Appendix K approach (p. 81). FERNANDEZ opined that the EM can follow either a BE plus uncertainty method, sometimes referred to as CSAU (Code Scaling, Applicability and Uncertainty) type of approach, or it allows for a full Appendix K EM approach. He explained that if an Appendix K approach is i
pursued, then the 1971 American Nuclear Society (ANS) star.dard for decay heat was required. If the BE aaproach was taken, the 1979 A.NS standard would be used. FERNANDEZ said if t1e 1979 ANS decay heat standtrd was used, it would not conform to Appendix K, but would be an alternative approach (pp. 86 and 87).
AGENT'S NOTE: The BE/EM analysis documented by YAEC in August 1990 used the 1979 ANS heat decay standard (see Exhibit 82).
FERNANDEZ does not ever recall hearing about PCTs over 2200 F, but did recall hearing about hydrodynamics, ECC bypass, oscillations, or cumulative oscillations (p. 91). FERNANDEZ agreed that decay heat is a significant input to PCTs: however, he was not aware that anyone at YAEC was concerned that I
their analysis of record had been invalidated because PCTs were going over 2200 F (p. 93).
! FERNANDEZ testified that, in late 1986, he was concerned with the ECCS'at MY
, and spoke with SCHULTZ about it. However, FERNANDEZ concluded, after doing l some more work, that YAEC was not having problems and his concern with MY's !
l ECCS was resolved (pp. 94 and 95).
Interview of LOOMIS (Exhibit 141)
LOOMIS worked at YAEC from October 1980 to August 1987 and was supervised l first by HUSAIN, and then by SCHULTZ. LOOMIS said he was not involved in plant applications, but instead with the simulator qualification for the early l
part of the development of RELAP5YA (pp. 21 25).
LOOMIS said in August 1987 RELAP5YA was not completed, that there was still a lot more work to be done, and when he came back to YAEC in 1989 on a l
consulting basis, the LOCA Group was still working on it (pp. 27 and 28).
l LOOMIS said he did not recall hearing that PCTs exceeded 2200 F (pp. 34 and 35).
Interview of GHAUS (Exhibit 144)
GHAUS worked at YAEC from January 1981 to November 1991. GHAUS understood
- ~
that RELAP5YA was the only EM for LOCA analysis, as required by Appendix K (pp. 9 14). GHAUS said in the pump trip study with RELAPSYA he did not 4
Case No. 1 95 050 32 l
i
remember any specific problems, discussions, or computer runs where the PCTs exceeded 2200'F. GHAUS said the LOCA group was working to complete the code requirements for II.K.3.30 and II.K.3.31 (pp. 18 20).
GHAUS testified that in 1990 he thought YAEC comaleted the licensing analysis for MYAPCo with RELAP5YA (p. 36). He admitted tlat, in the 1990 time frame, there were BE/EM cases where PCTs exceeded 2200'F: he could not recall the reasons for the excessive PCTs (p. 43). GHAUS said there were many computer runs and calculations made with different inputs, and if a particular calculation exceeded 2200 F, it could have been due to the input. GHAUS explained that exceeding 2200*F was not, in itself, significant because additional computer calculations could be run with different input, which would fix the problem, However, GHAUS did not view this as a problem (pp. 43 and 44).
GHAUS said that from June to August of 1990, YAEC made calculations that were generally considered BE calculations. GHAUS said the use of BE for licensing SBLOCA was not the objective, and he does not know if such an analysis complied with Appendix K for tl:e LOCA analysis (pp. 47-51).
GHAUS said he was involved with the computer calculations for the August 1990 summary report. The general intent was to do an analysis that complied with Appendix K. GHAUS did not recall the August 1990 report, but said he was involved in the analysis, but not the writing of the report (pp. 49 and 50).
GHAUS testified that he thought the licensing basis for MY in 1990 was the analysis that used RELAP5YA, which he worked on from June 1990 - August 1990.
It was a BE/EM analysis, and he did not know if it had been approved by the NRC, however, he acknowledges calling it a licensing basis in a January 25, ,
1991, memo (see Exhibit 90). GHAUS said YAEC did a BE analysis for a break i spectrum, and then did EH analysis for the limiting break (pp. 57 61 ).
GHAUS said METEVIA was generally knowlec jeable about the SBLOCA analysis, but he was not a LOCA expert. GHAUS opined that MYAPCo had the ability to review l the SBLOCA analysis that was furnished to them by YAEC (pp. 66 and 67). '
Interview of PAPANIC (Exhibit 152)
^
PAPANIC said that in 1982 he rejoined YAEC, and in June of 1985 became a licensing engineer for YR: he was laid off in December of 1992. PAPANIC said the only involvement he had with the TMI Action Items was that YR had those as ,
open issues, and he coordinated the submittals to the NRC (pp. 7-9). I PAPANIC said RELAP5YA was developed in response to TMI Item II.K. 3.30, and required compliance with 10 CFR 50.46 (pp. 25 and 26). He added that if a matter was to be part of the licensing basis, it would have to be docketed with NRC (pp. 31 and 32).
PAPANIC said Yankee Rowe relied upon the LOCA group to have familiarity with 10 CFR 50.46 (pp. 34 and 37). PAPANIC said if there was a question about interpretation of the regulations there were two paths open: (1) guidance from industry groups, or (2) contact with the NRC PM. PAPANIC said he did not 4
Case No. 1 95 050 33 I
remember any reluctance by engineers and managers to contact the NRC when questions arose (pp. 38 and 39).
PAPANIC said sending draft letters to NRC does not happen often, but on issues where there was a lot of discussion and a lot of past listory, to make sure that the words were well worked before submitting, it was sent to the NRC.
This was done basically to get NRC's blessing so the submittal did not have to be re written or re analyzed (pp. 45 and 46).
l PAPANIC said FAIRTILE closed II.K.3.31 for YR because of a YAEC letter, dated
' January 23 1989 (see Exhibit 49), which committed to submitting a plant specific SBLOCA analysis by the end of 1989 (). 47). He also said if there j was something in an analysis inconsistent wit 1 the SER, they would d lentify it
- . as best they could, usually up front, and prior to submittal to the NRC
! (p. 50). ~PAPANIC did not have any recollection of YAEC having difficulties
! applying RELAP5YA to MY or PCT's exceeding 2200 F after January 1989 (p. 55).
l III. The following YAEC employees were interviewed by NRC:01 on the dates indicated [the NRC:0IG attended selected interviews] regarding Allegation L No. 1:
l j 'Name Position Date of Interview William HETEVIA YAEC, Assistant Project Manager, January 18, 1996 i MY Project June 18, 1996 Ramu SUNDARAM YAEC, Manager LOCA Engineering January 18. 1996 Group June 26, 1996 Robert HARVEY YAEC, Senior Nuclear Engineer June 3, 1996 Liliane SCHOR YAEC, LOCA Principal Engineer June 3, 1996 Jay THAYER YAEC, Vice President June 4, 1996 Bruce SLIFER YAEC, Senior Titled Engineer June 4, 1996 l
John McCANN YAEC, Licensing Coordinator June 5, 1996 l~ Michael SCOTT YAEC, Senior Nuclear Engineer June 6, 1996 Glenn SWANBON YAEC, LOCA Engineer June 18, 1996 Peter ANDERSON YAEC, Project Manager June 19, 1996 l
Stephen SCHULTZ YAEC, Vice President, Nuclear
- Engineering Division June 20, 1996 Andrew KADAK YAEC, President and Chief Executive Officer June 27, 1996 l
T l
L Case No. 1 95 050 34 l
- . _ _ . . -_ - . - - - . . - - . =- .. - -. - - - - - . - - -
L Interview of METEVIA (Exhibit 123)
METEVIA said for SEARS' May 8,1989, letter, YAEC attempted to parallel the YR approach for MYAPCo. METEVIA said he believes SEARS understood the BE/EM method because of the fax SEARS sent to-YAEC of a copy of the YR approach (pp. 13 15). METEVIA also indicated that there were apparently telephone conversations with the NRC about the subject. He believes the NRC was informed that YAEC would proceed with the BE method, and to his understanding.
l when SEARS wrote the May 8, 1989, letter, he (SEARS) had in his mind the BE/EM l methodology (pp. 16 20). METEVIA did not know why a letter describing the BE method was not sent to the NRC (pp. 25 and 26). He does recall that there were code instabilities with RELAP5YA (p. 53).
Re interview of METEVIA (Exhibit 155)
METEVIA said he understood that RELAP5YA could apply both BE and Appendix K methods. METEVIA said there were extensive discussions about the BE method between NICHOLS and SEARS (pp. 74 and 75). METEVIA said he did not specifically recall the December 7,1989, draft memo to ANDERSON (see
! Exhibit 72), that was drafted by SUNDARAM. He said he would not have picked l
up the technical difference in the usage of BE between the draft memorandum i and the January 2, 1990, memorandum (see Exhibit 74). METEVIA said he was not aware of whether the change was discussed with the NRC (pp. 85 92).
Interview of SUNDARAM (Exhibit 124)
SUNDARAM, the man'ager of the LOCA grou) since February 1989, said information flows from the LOCA group to the YAEC iY projects office, to MYAPCo. and then to the NRC. MYAPCo Licensing is in the corporate offices and HEBERT is the current contact person (pp. 12, 13, 19, and 20). SUNDARAM said YAEC submitted RELAP5YA to the NRC in January 1983 and received a plant specific SER to use l RELAP5YA for MY in January 1989. The )lan in February 1989 was to complete the SBLOCA analysis during 1989, but tie plan did not work (pp. 21-26).
SUNDARAM said in January 1989 YAEC discussed with FAIRTILE the use of a BE l
method for YR and YAEC attempted to follow a similar method for HY (p. 31).
l SUNDARAM recalled that a series of telephone calls were made between the NRC
! PM and MYAPCo licensing personnel about the BE evaluation, but he was not a l party to the conversations. The LOCA group was aware the BE method was not the approach approved by the NRC. The BE method was not their original
- intention, but an alternate approach, which is why they tried to write a letter to the NRC to seek concurrence. His current understanding is that letter was not provided to the NRC (p. 34).
SUNDARAM was puzzled by the May 8, 1989, because it was not what he expected from the NRC. However. SLIFER told him to proceed with the SBLOCA analysis as planned (pp. 37-39). SUNDARAM said he did not understand what the term l
"o)erational" meant in the SEARS letter, but understood that MYAPCo was to use 1
RE_AP5YA to do the II.K.3.31 analysis for the next fuel cycle [12] and retain it for inspection (p. 44).
SUNDARAM said because YAEC had difficulties applying the RELAP5YA code to the MY SBLOCA analyses in 1986 or 1987, there was a technical investigation which Case No. 1 95 050 35 l
i l
concluded that it was due to excessive ECC bypass. There was also a meeting ,
with the NRC in early 1987, and a program was put together to look at the experiments and possible changes to the code (RELAPSYA) (pp. 58 and 59).
SUNDARAM said that, at the end of 1989, it was not clear what to do next.
RELAP5YA had oscillations when the code was applied in EM space and there were !
instances where the oscillations exceeded the 2200 F limit. SUNDARAM said l others in the group, the department manager, the vice president, the projects ,
office, and BOYNTON, were aware of the code problems. The overwhelming belief was that these problems were not real (pp. 73 and 74).
l SUNDARAM said YAEC had one immediate action, which was to try and do something by the middle of 1990 with RELAPSYA (p. 76). They referred back to 10 CFR 50.46 to see whether a completely realistic calculation [BE] was a reasonable 1 technical approach. SUNDARAM said YAEC was defir.itely aware that this was not j an NRC approved approach (p. 78). ,
j l SUNDARAM indicated that if 10 CFR 50.46 did not permit a BE approach then I there was no avenue to proceed, but there was an avenue [because of the 10 CFR i 50.46 change in 1988]. so they thought they would try (p. 80). The January 2 i 1990, recommendation letter to MYAPCo was returned to YAEC, saying that the BE/EM aporoach was accepted, with a note indicating that it was consistent with discussions held between MYAPCo and the NRC PM. SUNDARAM said it was !
also a licensing avenue. SUNDARAM said he understood that 10 CFR 50.46 does !
not allow the mixing of two approaches (p. 81). !
SUNDARAM said YAEC finished the work in mid-1990, ano his memo recommended l that if MYAPCo wanted to use this analysis it should submit a summary report l to the NRC. SUNDARAM said the work was completed, although somewhat tardy. l l
He said a cover memo attaching the summary report was sent to ANDERSON, with a statement that it could be used to address II.K.3.31 (p. 89). SUNDARAM stated !
that it was not an Appendix K approach, but rather a " novel approach." They expected that, if the recommended approach was ap3rovod by MYAPCo, it would ,
eventually go to the NRC. SUNDARAM found out muc1 later that the summary l report did not make it to the NRC (pp. 90 and 91). SUNDARAM acknowledaad that j the novel approach was different than that approved by the SER (p. 96). 4 SUNDARAM said when he became LOCA manager he understood that when II.K.3.30 was approved, within a year from that date, one should make a plant specific submittal. SUNDARAM said YAEC had made a commitment to complete it by August of 1990 and that was acceptable to MYAPCo. He assumed that was communicated with NRC (pp. 112 and 114).
SUNDARAM explained YAEC's intent was to complete an analysis for Cycle 12, due to the memo from SEARS, and that the approach was an attempt to comply with 10 CFR 50.46, but it was not an Apaendix K ap3 roach (pp, 108 114). SUNDARAM added, "I thought it was a reasonaale approac1 to try and satisfy 50.46" (p. 110).
Re interview of SUNDARAM (Exhibit 159)
SUNDARAM said when he first joined YAEC he discussed 10 CFR 50.46 with the NRC's RSB, but did not always understand the regulation. He did not have Case No. 1 95 050 36 l
. .. ~_ _ . _ _ _. _ _ . - _ _ ___ _ _ _ __ _. _ _ ___
l i
formal training regarding the regulation and any questions would be answered by the MYAPCo Licensing Department (pp. 7 9). SUNDARAM said 10 CFR 50.46 required a licensee to complete an analysis with an approved SBLOCA and LBLOCA l method. He also said RELAP5YA had TMI Action Items incorporated into it I (pp. 10 and 11).
l l
SUNDARAM said he was confident that MYAPCo was aware of the code oscillations:
no one in the LOCA grou) considered the PCTs in excess of 2200^F to be real (p. 86). He s' aid for tie changes in approach between the December 7, 1989, draft, and the January 2,1990, memorandum. he did not recall specific discussions with MYAPCo. only with the YAEC projects office. He recalls that METEVIA wrote the paragraph in the memorandum about the NRC's knowledge of the BE method, but SUNDARAM said he did not specifically know what was discussed with the NRC. He does not recall talking with NICHOLS during the period the draft was being written (pp. 102 111). SUNDARAM also said that, in 1990, while doing the BE analysis, YAEC-tried to do a parallel EM, but it still did
! not work (p. 152).
1 SUNDARAM said that for the 1991 analysis of the SG low pressure operation he i did not know if the CE method was still part of the licensing _ basis. In 1991, when he learned that the 1990 SBLOCA analysis was not submitted to the NRC, there were internal discussions held. SUNDARAM stated that by the end of
- 1991, the LOCA group was no longer referring to the August 1990 analysis as ,
! the licensing basis analysis. The LOCA group was back working on the RELAP5YA i Appendix K analysis, therefore, they did not pursue the BE method, and he did not recall any follow up action (pp. 64 82).
AGENT'S NOTE: The latest documented conversation between NICHOLS and SEARS occurred on December 6,1989, and only included a discussion to ;
the effect that a BE approach "similar to Yankee Rowe" (an Appendix K 1 a)proach) would be used for MY. The January 2, 1990, memo described l
SJNDARAM's " novel ap3 roach" which did not comply with Appendix K or the .
SER. There is no otler evidence of conversations between NICHOLS and LEEDS which might have included discussion of this " novel approach."
Interview of HARVEY (Exhibit 148)
HARVEY began his employment in the YAEC LOCA group in 1979 and has been in the group ever since (p. 5). He said that for YR a complete EH model, one that complied with Appendix K, was used for the SBLOCA analysis, due to time l constraints (p). 41 and 42). He said he was not aware that anything was l docketed for t1e MY plant regarding the use of an approach different from the SER (p. 38). HARVEY said an interim analysis for MY was the August 1990 analysis that did not meet the requirements of Appendix K (p. 43).
HARVEY said there was a concerted LOCA group effort to determine whether the oscillation problems were with the plant hardware or the code (p. 45). He said a reduction in the decay heat assumption resulted in acceptable results (p. 46). He agreed that if the NRC had seen the August 1990 analysis there might have been cuestions about the decay [ heat] model used (p. 49). HARVEY
, also said that SkANBON made the engineering judgement that the phenomena (oscillations) were not physical (p.126).
i Case No. 1 95 050 37 l
. _ _- _ _ _ _ _ __ _ . . _ _ _ _ ~ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . .
l HARVEY did not see the May 8, 1989, letter, when it was received by MYAPCo (3p. 78 and 79). He attended a Westinghouse workshop that recommended that t1e decision to report changes to the limiting event should be left to the individual licensee (p. 102). According to HARVEY, telephone conversations in 1989/1990 with the NRC indicated that the SBLOCA was nonlimiting and the NRC wanted to get the action items off the books. Therefore, he did not see using the BE analysis, to confirm that the SBLOCA was nonlimiting, to be alarming (p. 147).
Interview of SCHOR (Exhibit 149) ;
j SCHOR began working in the YAEC LOCA group in 1978 and recalled working on i RELAP5YA development, assessment, and application (p. 8). In 1988 and 1989 !
she worked on Vermont Yankee and used BE methods, but in early 1990 YAEC )
- decided to return to the EM method (p. 21). In the summer of 1990 she resumed )
! working on MY and was concerned that the PCTs occasionally exceeded 2200"F, j l but she felt the problem was in the code, not the plant. SCHOR said she l reviewed the August 1990 MY analysis and it met the proposed aaproach in the January 2, 1990, YAEC memorandum. She understood that approac1 had been discussed with appropriate NRC personnel, but it did not comply with the RELAP5YA SER (p. 56). SCHOR said the LOCA group did not use the approved code, because some of the PCTs would have exceeded 2200*F (p. 59). SCHOR said the January 2,1990, memorandum suggested that the analysis be submitted to 1 the NRC: she did not know why it was not provided (p. 68). SCHOR initially l said that the June 1993 analysis closed out II.K.3.31, and that II.K.K.30 was closed with the 1990 SBLOCA analysis (pp. 100-101). She then contradicted herself and said the 1990 analysis also closed out II.K.3.31 (p.106).
l Interview of THAYER (Exhibit 151) l THAYER has been employed with YAEC since 1981 and is the vice president of l YAEC and Vermont Yankee. He previously worked for YAEC from 1974 until 1979 and became responsible for MY projects in 1992/1993 (pp. 6, 7, 9, 20, and 37).
THAYER agreed that if an alternative method was to be used, in this case a.
SBLOCA method that differed from an NRC SER ap3 roved method, 'a very s3ecific discussion about the alternative method would ae needed with NRC so t1at the alternative method might receive approval (pp. 71 and 72). He agreed that the submittal of a schedule by a licensee is different than submittal of an actual analysis (p. 75). THAYER had no reason to question SUNDARAM's honesty, integrity or credibility (pp. 84 and 85).
Interview of SLIFER (Exhibit 150)
SLIFER began employment with YAEC in 1975 as a senior safety analysis engineer and progressed through the ranks until he was appointed as the manager of the NED in 1981. He worked in that position, and supervised the LOCA Group until December 1993, when he separated from YAEC. He returned to YAEC in May 1996 l in his current position (pp. 4, 5, and 20).
SLIFER agreed that analytical methods, like those used to analyze SBLOCA, have i to be submitted to and be approved by the NRC, and when approved, an SER l
accompanies the approval (pp. 11, 13, and 14).
Case No. 1 95 050 38
SLIFER advised that problems in the code existed prior to NRC's approval of RELAP5YA in 1989 and continued after its approval. He said the problems indicated instabilities of a non physical nature, like PCT's exceeding 2200'F. 1 SLIFER said, "...we knew we couldn't submit analysis that was above 2200 degrees, so we knew we had to do something in order to address the issue, and
)
that. is why we adopted some different approaches that we ultimately did in trying to resolve the issue" (pp. 21 23). SLIFER said such an analysis (PCT over 2200*F) could not be submitted, because it did not meet the requirements of 10 CFR 50.46 (pp. 21 24).
SLIFER acknowledged that the alternative BE approach used for the MY SBLOCA analysis, in the period after RELAP5YA approval in January 1989, had not been approved by the NRC. He added, "...I guess the record is clear..." that there was a delay in getting RELAP5YA resolved and implemented at MY (pp. 42 43).
SLIFER said there was uncertainty surrounding the SEARS letter of May 8,1989, as evidenced by his note written to SANDARAM, as to whether or not it closed II.K.3.30 and II.K.3.31 and if a submittal was to be made (pp. 51-54 and 58 59).
SLIFER admitted writing his concerns, possibly around July 1991, about the SBLOCA results showing high PCTs, and that they possibly invalidated the analysis of record that showed the LBLOCA to be limiting for MY (pp. 101 110).
He said he made sure ANDERSON was aware of his concern (p. 112). SLIFER said ;
he was able to convince himself that the code instabilities were not a systems 4 related problem, but a " code" problem (pp. 21 23).
Interview of McCANN (Exhibit 153)
McCANN said HETEVIA weld track and distribute a Service Request (SR) for the NED (p. 18). McCANN said that usually the product would travel separately ,
from the SR, therefore, the product would be received before the SR was closed (p. 20). He also said it would be difficult to believe a SR would be closed out without the product being delivered (p. 22). McCANN said from his experience MYAPCo had competency in the LOCA field (p. 40). McCANN reviewed the August 1,1990, YAEC memorandum (see Exhibit 82) and was unable to discern whether the memorandum and the attached analysis were delivered to MYAPCo (p. 32).
Interview of SCOTT (Exhibit 154)
SCOTT began his employment with YAEC in 1983 and is currently the Nuclear Engineering Coordinator in NED (p. 6). He coordinated the efforts to develop RELAP5YA, which included keeping MYAPCo apprised of what was going on in development of RELAP5YA (p. 7). SCOTT recalls meetings where the difficulties and problems associated with ap31ying RELAP5YA to MY were discussed with BOYNTON, and possibly JONES. T1e problems involved the code exhibiting behavior that was not physical, including PCTs above 2200 F, both before and after approval of RELAPSYA by the NRC (pp. 10 13, 22, and 23).
SCOTT opined that the LBLOCA is the limiting break for MY and, therefore. only the LBLOCA requires reports under 10 CFR 50.46 (pp. 25 and 29 30). SCOTT denies having any knowledge of the fraudulent manipulation of the code by Case No. 1 95 050 39
YAEC/MYAPCo, or of any cover-up of significant information regarding RELAPSYA J
(pp. 47 and 48).
SCOTT disclosed that one of the only things that the NED group at YAEC was ever "3inged on by MYAPCo," in terms of performance, was the development of the SB_0CA analysis in the 1988 1993 time frame. NED usually got excellent ratings from MYAPCo (p. 50). SCOTT said SBLOCA was a high priority item during the late 80s and early 90s, and he is confident BOYNTON was made aware of relevant information that was needed for licensing decisions (pp. 63 65).
SCOTT admitted that, without his notes, he could not recall much of anything from the 1989 timeframe, and he had no specific recollection of seeing the May 8, 1989. SEARS letter when it was issued, although he was on distribution i
for it. He recalled the letter being discussed in meetings and that it was l interpreted to mean a submittal for II.K.3.31 was not required. He agreed that RELAPSYA was not used for Cycle 12. as the letter said it would be (pp. 80 86). SCOTT then contradictorily testified that he did not remember any discussion about the letter: that the letter was discussed in at least one meeting; that possibly it was not discussed; and that if it was discussed he would have notes on the topic (pp. 88 95). SCOTT asserted that the issue of l the May 8,1989, letter would be in his notes, since he told ML&B during a l l prior interview that he recalled the letter being discussed. SCOTT said he I would not have agreed with the ML&B summary report of interview if he did not j have it in his notes. He could not say for sure if the information in the ML&B summary regarding discussions of the May 8,1989, letter was accurate, and said he would check his notes to verify the information (pp. 97 and 98).
AGENT'S NOTE: Subsequent efforts by SCOTT to locate notes about these
, purported discussions were unsuccessful. There were no notes found of l the kickoff meeting of February 14, 1989, as represented by a July 15,
! 1996, letter from ML&B to NRC's Boal.
SCOTT recalled that there were discussions held about using the BE approach in the CPAR [for Cycle 13] as the licensing analysis, but it was decided that CE methods would be used, instead of the BE method, because the BE method had not l been approved by the NRC. SCOTT is not aware of the BE method ever being approved by the NRC (pp. 131 134).
l Interview of SWANBON (Exhibit 156) l l SWANBON began working for the YAEC LOCA group in 1989, and in January 1990 began working on the MY SBLOCA analysis. He initially worked on the details of the input model (pp. 5 8). SWANBON said he recalled a June 1, 1990, l deadline for the analysis, but was unsure of the basis for that particular l
date (p. 31).
l SWANBON said he used the SUNDARAM/METEVIA January 2, 1990, memorandum as a l guideline to conduct the analysis (pp. 8 and 9). He said he was told to I I independently construct the vessel fluid volumes but maintain the original l
model's nodalization scheme (pp. 10 11).
SWANBON recalled that he was provided a copy of the RELAP5YA SER in 1991, after finishing the 1990 SBLOCA analysis (p.12). SWANBON said the 1990 Case No. 1 95 050 40
l' l
SBLOCA analysis used BE input assumptions for the break spectrum (p. 15). He said, at that )oint in time. "we" felt that the August 1, 1990, SBLOCA analysis was t1e analysis of record for MY (p. 97).
! SWANBON said his work did not reveal anything deficient about the MY power I
alant. He explained that the LOCA group concluded that over predicting the ICC bypass phenomenon was not really physical (pp. 2123). SWANBON added that his understanding was that they could not change the code because it had
! already been approved (p. 24). He said after January 1.990, there were no changes to the code that he was aware of (p. 29).
Interview of ANDERSON (Exhibit 157) l ANDERSON has been the project manager for MY at YAEC since 1983, and his
- duties have included being the single point of contact between the two
! companies. ANDERSON said the MYAPCo point of contact is the vice president of engineering (pp. 6 and 7).
l ANDERSON said the development of RELAP5YA took a number of years to complete and had a number of problems, but ultimately YAEC developed the code to meet the requirements of 10 CFR 50.46 (p. 13). He said there was no misunderstanding between MYAPCo and YAEC that RELAP5YA continued to have j problems, and YAEC continued to work on the code problems (p. 49). ANDERSON I said he did not believe the BE/EM method was ever submitted to the NRC for approval (p). 61 and 62). ANDERSON said that, in his opinion. YAEC finally completed t1e EM model in the summer of 1993 (pp. 72 and 73).
l ANDERSON explained that the SEARS letter [May 8,1989] said to apply RELAPSYA l in an EM fashion, and that was not done until a full EM model was comaleted (p. 74). Upon reviewing the May 8,1989, letter, with the notation w1ere SLIFER said ANDERSON is "...trying to straighten out...." ANDERSON said he had i no recollection of any discussion about that (p. 90). ANDERSON said the l May 8, 1989, letter superseded the requirements of the SER (p. 163). He also l
said MYAPCo was aware the June 1990 analysis was completed. However, they (MYAPCo) did not request the analysis, therefore, it was not sent to MYAPCo (pp. 174 175).
i Interview of SCHULTZ (Exhibit 158) t SCHULTZ said in October 1986 he became the manager of the YAEC LOCA group, and in January 1989 he was promoted to vice president of Engineering Services (p. 8). He said there were discussions in early 1989, between FAIRTILE and PAPANIC, wherein FAIRTILE suggested that the BE approach for completion of II.K.3.31 could be used for YR (p. 25). However, the completed analysis for YR used a full EM Appendix K approach (p. 38).
SCHULTZ opined that SEARS relied heavily on the technical staff with regards to the reviews of technical information presented to the NRC (p. 65). SCHULTZ l said that in 1987 YAEC kept the NRC informed of problems in RELAP5YA's development that resulted in PCTs exceeding 2200 F, and spoke with the technical reviewer and the national labs about a solution (p. 76). He said a change in the downcomer nodalization did impact the core cooling performance and thinks it was discussed with the NRC in 1987 (p. 90).
1 Case No. 1-95 050 41
l SCHULTZ said that II.K.3.31 indicated that one year after appro'ial of a l methodology an analysis would be performed (p. 129). He was not aware of discussions with the NRC, after January 1989, that related to problems encountered in trying to a) ply the approved code (p.136). SCHULTZ thought RELAP5YA, as approved by t1e NRC, was applied to MY for Cycle 13, in 1993 l (p. 138).
l SCHULTZ also said that II.K.3.31 was closed by the SEARS May 8, 1989, letter.
l and that II.K.3.30 was closed with the approval of RELAP5YA. Also, given the analysis that was to be performed for Cycle 12. II.K.3.31 would be completed i (p. 139). He received a copy of the SEARS May 8,1989, letter, and recalled a !
meeting with MYAPCo and YAEC, where the letter was discussed (pp. 141 143).
SCHULTZ said that the analysis was completed on June 1,1990, and documented on August 1. 1990 (p. 146). He added that the non-physical behavior in the EM i model for the plant was not as evident in the BE models and analyses, ;
i therefore, they felt it was a better approach for MY (pp. 151 and 152). He l does not know why the August 1990 analysis was not submitted to the NRC and i has concluded that there was a misunderstanding and that MYAPCo thought the i application was only for the purpose of closing out II.K.3.31 (p.139). '
l In his opinion, the position of YAEC and MYAPCo was that the June 1990 j analysis closed out II.K.3.31 (p.195). He also said that GHAUS, referring to the August 1990 analysis as the licensing basis, was in error and did not i characterize the analysis appropriately (p. 200).
Interview of KADAK (Exhibit 160) l KADAK has been employed with YAEC since 1979, and since 1989 he has been the president and CEO (pp. 6 and 7). He is also a vice president of MYAPCo (p. 16).
KADAK testified that he was aware of 3roblems in the development of RELAPSYA by YAEC in the 1986 1989 timeframe: t1e problems included non physical l behavior. RELAP5YA was not implemented until 1993 because of the problems I (pp. 10, 11, 14 and 42). He said that YAEC and the licensee were working to !
meet the one year commitment that was made in accordance with II.K.3.31 l (pp. 38 and 39). l KADAK testified that he thought he was told in, or about, August 1990 that a l BE analysis had been completed for II.K.3.31, but he was "...very much aware..." that they still needed to complete a full Appendix K analysis,
"...which we continued to work on" (pp. 42 and 43). KADAK opined that, as of the May 8,1989, SEARS letter, the RELAP5YA code was operational, but the computer model, although running, was apparently having difficulties showing realistic performance (pp. 54 and 55).
KADAK said that SLIFER apparently advised him in a February 1991 document that, "In 1990 we met our commitment to Maine Yankee to provide an analysis
! supporting Cycle 12 operation based on an approach worked out between Maine Yankee, Steve NICHOLS, and the NRC." This was an indication to KADAK ;
that SLIFER believed the June / August 1990 SBLOCA analysis met the commitment l
i Case No. 1-95 050 42 l
l l
i to provide the analysis for Cycle 12. KADAK was not certain what SLIFER meant by the phrase, " supporting Cycle 12 operation" (pp. 57 61).
l l
He-is not aware of any material information purposely being withheid from the l NRC by YAEC or MYAPCo (p. 76). ,
? l IV. The following MYAPCo employees were interviewed by NRC:01 [the NRC:0IG j also attended selected interviews] on the dates indicated regarding )
Allegation No. 1, l
Name Position Date of Interview David B0YNTON MYAPCo, Section Head, February 15, 1996 Nuclear Engineering July 1,1996
~ James HEBERT MYAPCo Manager, Licensing February 15, 1996 and Engineering Support June 28, 1996 Steven NICHOLS MYAPCo, Manager, Corporate February 15, 1996 Engineering June 28, 1996 i
Robert JORDAN MYAPCo, Senior Licensing February 16, 1996 Engineer July 1,1996 George WHITTIER MYAPCo, Vice President, February 16, 1996 Licensing and Engineering July 2,1996 Steven EVANS MYAPCo Licensing Engineer July 2,1996 Howard JONES MYAPCo, Manager, Reactor Engineering July 2,1996 Charles FRIZZLE MYAPCo, President and Chief Executive Officer July 3,1996 Interview of BOYNTON (Exhibit 126)
BOYNTON began his employment with MYAPCo in 1972, became supervisor of Reactor Engineering in 1979, and a section head in Nuclear Engineering in 1988 (p. 6).
BOYNTON recalls attending regular monthly meetings with YAEC in the 1989 1990 timeframe, wherein discussions indicated that oscillations had the PCT exceeding 2200'F. He was told by SUNDARAM, at that time, that it was a code 3roblem, not a physical problem with the )lant. BOYNTON was aware the code lad been approved for use by the NRC, so le thought the plant's modeling of the code was the source of the problem (pp.1013).
BOYNTON relied on the LOCA group's judgment that the oscillation problems were
! not credible or believable. If the oscillations had been credible that would have triggered the thought that the NRC should be made aware of the PCT problem, and he would have done so. The problem with oscillations was ultimately resolved by using smaller time steps when YAEC obtained better computers (pp. 14 17).
l t
Case No. 1 95-050 43 l
i BOYNTON said the August 1,1990, SBLOCA analysis report closed out the II.K.3.31 issue, but was not considered the analysis of record, nor was it part of licensing calculation (ap. 22 24, 26, and 28). However, he acknowledged that RELAP5YA had aeen used as a licensing calculation in the 1985 reactor coolant pump trip study to resolve that particular licensing issue (p. 29).
BOYNTON explained that no reports were made to the NRC concerning SBLOCA, because the SBLOCA was not considered to be the limiting break at MY, MYAPCo's understanding is that 10 CFR 50.46 only involves the limiting break analysis, in MY's case, the LBLOCA, so they were not required to report anything under SBLOCA (p). 44 45 and 47). The question of reporting requirements was raised ay SUNDARAM at a meeting a number of years ago, and it was addressed by JONES last year. JONES wrote a memo (Exhibit 119) that concluded that NYAPCo was in compliance with the 10 CFR 50.46 reporting.
.BOYNTON indicated this memo was created so that they could have a documented podtion or 10 CFR 50.46 reporting (pp. 63 64). 1 B0YNTON rRalls seeing the May 19, 1989, draft letter from WHITTIER to NRC, concernine ti,e BE/EH a)proach. He thought it had been submitted and does not know why it was not su)mitted (pp. 72, 73, and 75). He remembers the May 8, 1989, SEARS letter, and believes the RELAP5YA code was operational at that time (p. 78). However, RELAP5YA was not used for Cycle 12, because of the l development problems that were ongoing at that time. He believes the NRC was aware of what code was used via the CPAR (p. 80). He does not remember any discussion with NICHOLS about the telephone conversations that NICHOLS had with the NRC (p. 84).
Re interview of B0YNTON (Exhibit 163)
B0YNTON does not remember discussions on reporting the RELAP5YA problems to i the NRC [after RELAP5YA approval] under Part 21, but he does recall -
discussions with SUNDARAM about the nature of the aroblems, and the fact that SUNDARAM told him that it was not a problem with t1e plant. BOYNTON recalls talking with his boss, NICHOLS, about the problems (pp. 24 28).
BOYNTON believes that the SBLOCA analysis of August 1990, which closed out TMI l Action Item II.K.3.31, was done in accordance with 10 CFR 50.46 (pp. 38 41). )
He does not recall anyone concluding that the PCTs that exceeded 2200 F, using l
RELAP5YA, should have been reported to the NRC (pp. 36 and 47-50).
BOYNTON disclosed that he was concerned when, in June 1991, he was informed ;
that PCT's were above 2200"F: he made notes documenting the excessive PCT at the break size of 0.3 ft 2(pp. 77 and 78). However, SUNDARAM resolved BOYNTON's concern, when he [SUNDARAM] explained that it was not a physical problem with the plant. BOYNTON kept his management, namely WHITTIER, NICHOLS and HEBERT, abreast of the problems in modeling RELAP5YA to MY, as they were described to him by SUNDARAM (p. 93).
! BOYNTON advised that MY uses an internal 50.59 procedure that does not
. necessarily fall into the 10 CFR 50.59 rule. He said the purpose of the l l internal 50.59 evaluation regarding lower steam generator (SG) pressure was to assure that, with the lowering of SG pressure, because of degraded SG and the 4
Case No. 1 95 050 44 l !
l l
1.__ i contemplated opening up the governor valves, MYAPCo could still meet NRC acceptance criteria in their analysis. He said YAEC's GHAUS appears to have been incorrect in depicting the August 1,1990. SBLOCA analysis as a
" licensing basis analysis" (see Exhibit 90) because the CE analysis was still the analysis of record at that time (pp. 121 130).
AGENT'S NOTE: BOYNTON's description of what he thought the Tech S]ec listing of approved methods meant is included in pages 146163 of lis ;
transcript. Basically, BOYNTON thought the listing of ap3 roved codes in l the TS meant they could be relied on in the future, not t1at they had to '
be used once listed in the TS. He admitted that SBLOCA analysis had to be done to demonstrate compliance with 50.46, even though the LBLOCA was used to establish the COLs. CE's SBLOCA code was not listed in the TS l
change request because HYAPCo wasn't planning on using it in the future.
l l Interview of HEBERT (Exhibit-127)
HEBERT said that he did not know what happened to the SER that came in to MYAPCo in January 1989 (pp. 7 and 8). He said he understood that TMI Action Item II.K.3.30 required an upgrade for the SBLOCA model (p. 35).
HEBERT said he thought the SBLOCA analysis was kept at YAEC because MYAPCo was
! told by SEARS to hold it for inspection (pp. 65 and 66). HEBERT also said that 10 CFR 50.46 was a regulation, whereas NUREG 0737 was not a regulation,
! and the whole organization, including YAEC, was responsible to insure conformance with the regulations (p. 80). HEBERT said that although II.K.3.30 and II.K.3.31 were TMI Action Items and not regulations, MYAPCo was still attempting to comply with them (p. 90). HEBERT said he was not aware of any reluctance by MYAPCo or YAEC to contact the NRC PM on any issue (p. 98).
Re interview of HEBERT (Exhibit 161)
HEBERT agreed that II.K.3.30 and II.K.3.31, combined, was a vehicle to demonstrate compliance with 10 CFR 50.46. However, he added that although a code [RELAP5YA] complied with II.K.3.30 and II.K.3.31, MYAPCo didn't need to use it if it was not part of their license (pp. 52 and 53).
Interview of NICHOLS (Exhibit 128)
NICHOLS worked as the Licensing Supervisor Section Head and Manager of Licensing after March 1989 and prior to summer 1994, and was/is responsible for interacting with the NRC (pp. 5 8). NICHOLS read some of his memoranda from 1989, where there were several discussions with the NRC PM regarding II.K.3.30 and II.K.3.31: he does not specifically recall the particular discussions (pp. 10 and 11).
NICHOLS does not recall the May 5, 1989, telephone conversation he apparently had with SEARS: he does not recall receiving the May 8,1989, SEARS letter:
-and does not recall being approached about it, or having discussions with anyone about the letter, at that time, even though he was Licensing i
Supervisor. NICHOLS' view of II.K.3.30 was that MYAPCo mad 7 a commitment, in l
response to NUREG 0737, to implement a revised SBLOCA method (pp. 12-14, Case No. 1-95-050 45
. - . - - _ ~ . . . . _ - - ...-.- -.-.- ----.--.- - -.
and 19). NICHOLS acknowledged that he did not know why the new code RELAP5YA was not used for Cycle 12 (p. 24).
NICHOLS said that if MYAPCo disagreed with the NRC letter of May 8,1989, which imalied that RELAP5YA would be used for the Cycle 12 reload, he would expect t1at it would be followed up with a aiece of correspondence. From what he saw in his telephone logs, NICHOLS said le apparently followed up with the NRC on the use of the old code, but did not send any correspondence (pp. 50 52).
NICHOLS does not recall what his understanding was, at the time, regarding the phrase ". . .the code is o)erational . . ." ], and he does not even know if those were lis words. It would have been his practice that, if there was something dramatically wrong with the letter, he would have talked with SEARS about it (p. 67).
NICHOLS agreed that the conditions of an SER have to be met because they are the conditions by which NRC accepts an issue (p. 53). NICHOLS does not know if he was the one referred to as the MY Manager of Nuclear Engineering and Licensing, who helped develep the recommended program [BE/EM], in the January 2, 1990, METEVIA/SUNDARAM memorandum [see Exhibit 74]. NICHOLS was the acting manager for WHITTIER in September 1989. NICHOLS said, "I'm afraid I could not have had a detailed conversation [with the Project Manager about the approach"] and that whatever is in his writeup (Se)tember 1989 conversation with NRC) is what he would have told the 4RC (pp. 6164).
NICHOLS said he did not know "... if we could provide a justification" for ,
using the CE method instead of the RELAP5YA method for Cycle 12 (pp. 32-34).
He does not believe he was kept abreast of the RELAP5YA 3roblems, such as oscillations, but knew at some point that there were pro)lems (p. 42).
NICHOLS shared responsibility to communicate with the NRC with WHITTIER and others in licensing (p. 38).
NICHOLS denied being aware of any effort by MYAPCo/YAEC to conceal relevant information relating to SBLOCA from the NRC (p. 72). NICHOLS said it was common practice for SEARS to have a technical reviewer on telephone conversations with him [NICHOLS] (p. 77).
Re-interview of NICHOLS (Exhibit 162)
NICHOLS testified he could not have distinguished the difference between the BE/EM or the BE/EM (non appendix K) approach in his discussions with LEEDS.
, and does not even know exactly what is meant by the "best estimate" term; he does not have the expertise, nor did he believe LEEDS had that expertise (pp. 48 40).
NICHOLS said a letter that he had edited, detailing the schedule, was going to be submitted to the NRC, but it was not submitted because of his talk with LEEDS, wherein LEEDS agreed that a schedule did not need to be submitted.
NICHOLS opined that the schedule, the method, and the analysis were all the same (pp. 51 55 and 70).
Case No. 1 95 050 46
3 NICHOLS testified that he crossed off the section of the draft letter indicating that the results of the SBLOCA analysis for II.K.3.31 would be submitted to the NRC (p. 63). He opined that a note from ANDERSON at YAEC could have been the imaetus for him [NICHOLS] to delete the section of the letter on submitting t1e results (pp. 64 65). NICHOLS reiterated that the technical detail of an approach, such as Appendix K EM, is not something he is capable of commenting on (p. 74). He does not think he talked with LEEDS about complying with Appendix K (p.114).
NICHOLS thought that his written comment on the proposed approach, "the attached is consistent with discussions with NRC on 9/14 and 12/6" was accurate, even though he was not aware there were differences in the approaches, the SER. and what he might have told LEEDS. In his mind
[NICHOLS], BE is "all the same thing" (pp. 81 85).
NICHOLS also testified that he did not know what was done on YR. even though he wrote in his September 14, 1989, conversation record with LEEDS, that MY's plans were to use BE "similar" to what was done at YR. NICHOLS admits that he did not detail the approach for LEEDS and does not know a BE from an EM (pp. 86, 87, and 110). NICHOLS acknowledged that he never justified the use of the old methodology [CE], versus the new methodology [RELAP5YA], to the NRC, as was asked of him by LEEDS and as he (NICHOLS) documented (p. 88).
NICHOLS o)ined that the May 8, 1989, SEARS letter closed out II.K.3.31:
however. 1e admitted that MYAPCo and YAEC continued to work on resolving II.K.3.31 because it was an outstanding issue (pp. 131, 132, and 138).
NICHOLS did not know why RELAPSYA was listed in the TS change request of November 1990 as having been used for Cycle 12 (p.147). NICHOLS said he wrote a note, in July 1991, about increased NRC attention on SBLOCA issues, as a result of a discussion with ANDERSON (pp. 150 154).
l Interview of JORDAN (Exhibit 129)
I
! JORDAN began working at MY in 1987 in the nuclear engineering section, and in 1990, moved to the licensing section (pp. 5 and 6). He said the oscillation problems with RELAP5YA persisted before and after the January 1989 NRC approval of RELAP5YA (p. 10). He said YAEC told MYAPCo the problem was a code aroblem, not a safety problem, and that the calculations had not been reviewed
>y QA (p. 13). He said the " numbers" became final and were QA*d in mid to late 1990 (p. 25). JORDAN said calculational files are maintained at YAEC as a matter of routine (p. 91).
JORDAN said a summary report of the analysis [ August 1990] was not provided to the NRC due to the SEARS' May 8, 1989, letter (p). 56 and 67). He said either NICHOLS or WHITTIER told him to cease drafting t1e letter that he started in A)ril 1989 to explain the BE method to the NRC, due to the receipt of the ;
SEARS letter (pp. 69 and 77).
1 Re interview of J0RDAN (Exhibit 164) j l JORDAN recalls the receipt of the May 8, 1989, SEARS letter, and that it i
addressed the closure of II.K.3.31 but he can not recall discussions about the Case No. 1 95 050 47 1
. - -. . - ~. - - . - - _ . . . - - - - - - - - - ..
l letter at the time (p. 6). He said that, subsequent to receipt of the letter, '
MYAPCo had discussions with the NRC about changing the commitment to use RELAP5YA for the Cycle 12 reload and, therefore, it was not used (p.10).
JORDAN said that II.K.3.31 was closed out with the SEARS letter of May 1989 (p. 55).
]
l JORDAN said the January 2, 1990, memorandum from YAEC, may have passed through l Nuclear Engineering when neither he nor JONES, his successor, were there to i review it (p. 23). He understood that, at the end of 1989, RELAP5YA had run l some preliminary calculations associated with the MY model with no final results (p. 25).
l .
JORDAN said the draft letters he created for WHITTIER's signature were created from a similar YR letter of January 23, 1989, and were intended to inform the NRC of the approach to be taken for II.K.3.31 for HY (pp. 69-72). He
! indicated that the draft letters resurfaced as a result of LEEDS' request on October 12, 1989, for information concerning scheduling constraints and descriptions of the methodology (3. 92). It was JORDAN's understanding that LEEDS and NICHOLS had agreed on S3LOCA, and that MYAPCo would complete the j reviews by June 1,1990, and that a schedule was no longer required (p. 93).
! JORDAN said he wrote the November 5, 1990, letter to the NRC requesting a TS change. JORDAN said that, in compliance with generic letter 8816. a sample COLR with TS changes was submitted. He said the CE code for SBLOCA was not listed in the TS change because it did not generate core operating limits, and because the LBLOCA was limiting. JORDAN explained that RELAP5YA is shown in
, the TS for future use as an approved code (pp. 106 120).
l Interview of WHITTIER (Exhibit 130)
I WHITTIER was Manager of Nuclear Engineering and Licensing from 1985 until 1990, when he became the Vice President of the same group (p. 6). He recalled discussions with METEVIA from 1987 to 1989, wherein he learned about the RELAP5YA developmental difficulties, described to him as non physical behavior of the code resulting in oscillations (p. 15). WHITTIER said he did not recall ever being informed that the SBLOCA analysis results suggested that MYAPCo had a hardware problem (p. 64). He said if the code was the current licensing basis for MY, and it showed temperatures in excess of 2200 F, that would be a reportable type of event (p.19).
WHITTIER said he had a strong memory that the SEARS May 8, 1989, letter, was l
the NRC close out for MY of II.K.3.30 and II.K.3.31. The letter gave MYAPCo considerable flexibility in the implementation of RELAP5YA. He added that was unusual, but not totally out of line (pp. 30-31). WHITTIER said it was his understanding that as long as MYAPCo used RELAPSYA in some manner to develop or evaluate Cycle 12 the requirements of the SEARS letter were met (p. 51).
WHITTIER added that the August 1990 SBLOCA analysis using BE/EM' methods met
"...some lingering obligation..." in the SEARS letter (p. 49).
WHITTIER said he does not recall the January 1989 SER with the 12 conditions, but would have relied upon YAEC to ensure compliance with them (pp. 37 38).
WHITTIER said, at the time [1987-1989], he did not distinguish between code
, development and model development (pp. 42 and 43).
J Case No. 1 95-050 48
l V3on reviewing the draft YAEC letters [ April May 1989) that were not sent to I t1e NRC, WHITTIER said he felt MYAPCo decided not to pursue the use of the BE technique as a licensing basis for the plant and, thus, decided not to send a letter to the NRC (pp. 84 and 85).
Re-interview of WHITTIER (Exhibit 167)
WHITTIER said the SEARS letter implied that the RELAP5YA method would be used i in some way with respect to Cycle 12 not necessarily for the licensing l analysis or analysis of record. WHITTIER added that, at that time [May 1989],
he did not recall the status of RELAP5YA (pp. 24 and 25). However, it is his ,
understanding that RELAP5YA was used in some manner to analyze Cycle 17.. but ,
was not used as an analysis of record or in the CPAR. WHITTIER said tnat II.K.3.31 was closed out with the May 8, 1989, letter (p. 26). He n;ver viewed II.K.3.31 as a vehicle to show compliance with 10 CFR 50.46, but as a vehicle for evaluating the effects of TMI (p. 31). '
WHITTIER said he did not recall having a discussion with SEARS about the clock that started in October with the issuance of the generic SER (p. 40).
WHITTIER said that he was assigned to the plant from February until July 1990, and had no memory of the disposition of the summary report from June 1990. He added that he had no recollection of why the summary report was not submitted (pp. 56 and 57).
WHITTIER asserted that the SEARS letter had the effect of changing the reporting requirements of the January 1989 SER (p. 81). He said that closing the II.K.3.31 item was more im]ortant to the NRC than it was to MYAPCo (p. 95). WHITTIER also said t1at if the NRC PM, LEEDS, wanted a stand alone descri) tion of the type of analysis that was going to be used in 1990, he would lave informed NICHOLS on December 6. 1989, when the topic was apparently discussed (p. 144).
Interview of EVANS (Exhibit 165)
EVANS began his employment with MYAPCo in June 1980 in the Licensing Department. He was a Senior Licensing Coordinator in 1988 and 1989, and currently is a Section Head in the Environmental Health and Safety / Emergency Preparedness Program. His duties in the 1987 1989 timeframe included the development and submittal of regulatory information to NRC (pp. 3, 6, and 8).
EVANS does not recall specific discussions with SEARS, but generally they talked on occasion about MY's progress and schedule for submission of licensing documents (pp. 11 and 12). EVANS does not recall seeing the fax sheet from SEARS concerning SBLOCA in January 1989 (pp. 13 15). He could not recall if SEARS typically sent draft NRC letters for licensee review (pp.16 and 17).
Interview of JONES (Exhibit 166)
JONES has been employed at MY since 1980 and is a Principal Engineer in the Nuclear Engineering Department: he worked at the plant from 1988 to 1991.
l JONES did not work on the development of the SBLOCA analysis (pp. 5 8).
l l
Case No. 1 95 050 49 l
i JONES said Cycles 13 and 14 were operated under 10 CFR 50.59. JONES testified that the TS list at 5.14.2, which includes analyses methods, is not an all inclusive list and, therefore, the CE method for SBLOCA that was used for Cycle 13 is not included therein: he claims the CE method was " grandfathered" (pp. 13-20). JONES agreed that the Cycle 12 core operating limits, as listed at TS 5.14.2, lists RELAP5YA. and not CE, as the approved method and, therefore, appears to be inconsistent. However, he explained that the linear heat' rate limits were primarily set by LBLOCA. He described the inconsistency as a possible oversight (pp. 22 25).
JONES acknowledged that YAEC/MYAPCo is required to verify that the SBLOCA has not become limiting for MY in order to set the core operating limits (p. 28).
J0NES does not know why the CE method was not included in the TS for Cycle 12 (p. 33).
JONES was aware of the one year time clock for imalementation of RELAP5YA in accordance with II.K.3.31. He testified that (RE_AP5YA) was implemented for
. Cycle 14 in order to meet the commitment to the NRC. JONES added "it would be inappropriate to continue using the CE analysis..." (ap. 38 40). He further testified that once RELAP5YA was implemented, "tiere was no falling ;
back without NRC review and approval." He also advised that, after the one year. clock on II.K.3.30 and II.K.3.31 had expired, MYAPCo would not be meeting the commitment made to the NRC with respect to the TMI Action Items. JONES was not aware of conversations between NICHOLS and the NRC about implementing RELAP5YA (pp. 45 47).
JONES testified that the GHAUS memo of January 25, 1991, regarding the low steam generator pressure issue is directly related to a 10 CFR 50.59 evaluation (pp. 102 105).
Interview of FRIZZLE (Exhibit 168)
FRIZZLE began employment with MY in August 1971. He worked his way up from Engineering Assistant to the President and was made Chief Executive Officer in 1990 (pp. 6 and 7).
FRIZZLE recalled reading the May 8, 1989, letter that closed out the TMI Action Items regarding SBLOCA, and also recalled discussing the closure with GARRITY, and possibly WHITTIER. He did not recall the discussions including anything along the lines as that stated in the allegation letter (pp. 18 21 and 25).
FRIZZLE claimed he had an understanding, ever since the early 1980s, that II.K.3.30 and II.K.3.31 were exemptions from an NRC order, but that MYAPCo made a commitment to meet those TMI Action Items. FRIZZLE added that the fact that II.K.3.30 and II.K.3.31 were not part of the order ".. .didn't make much difference to me..." due to the previous commitment (pp. 27, 29, 44, and 45).
FRIZZLE did not recall notifying anyone that II.K.3.30 and II.K.3.31 were not part of the order (p. 30). (This information was apparently not discussed in FRIZZLE *s prior interview with ML&B (p. 34).)
Case No. 1 95 050 50
l FRIZZLE was aware, from discussions with GARRITY and perhaps WHITTIER, that YAEC was having more trouble than was anticipated in applying RELAP5YA to MY l on a plant specific basis (p. 34).
FRIZZLE noted that the LBLOCA has always been the limiting break for MY (p. 49).
, FRIZZLE characterized the listing in the TS' (1991) of RELAP5YA as the SBLOCA i l method for Cycle 12 as a " discrepancy," since the CE method had actually been l used (p. 58). FRIZZLE then testified, (at the prompting of his ML&B attorney) that he was not sure if it was a discrepancy (p. 59). FRIZZLE acknowledged that the TS change request indicated that the limits for Cycle 12 had been derived from the ap3 roved methods, one of which was RELAP5YA, as opposed to
.the actual use of t1e CE method (pp. 60 and 61).
Acent's Analysis l The accident that occurred at TMI in March 1979 was one of the most I
significant events in the history of the commercial use of nuclear power in the United States. That accident, in part, resulted from a loss of coolant event. As a direct result of that accident, the U.S. NRC developed TMI Action Items II.K.3.30 and II.K.3.31, so that nuclear reactor licensees would revise their SBLOCA analyses in accordance with what was learned from the TMI 1 accident. In 1980 the NRC issued NUREG 0737, summarizing all the TMI Action Items that had been approved by the Commission for implementation, including II.K.3.30 and II.K.3.31.
II.K.3.30 and II.K.3.31 were issued as guidance for licensees to follow in order to demonstrate the adequacy _ of the ECCS, as required by 10 CFR 50.46 and Appendix K to Part 50. In January 1983, in response to NUREG 0737, YAEC, acting as agent for MYAPC0, submitted RELAPSYA to the NRC for approval as the '
revised SBLOCA analysis evaluation model (II.K.3.30). A Confirmatory Order was issued by the NRC on March 14, 1983, to MYAPCo, regarding the post TMI issues. The Order referenced letters from MYAPC0, wherein commitments were made by the licensee to implement II.K.3.30 and II.K.3.31 by using RELAP5YA as MYAPCO's revised SBLOCA evaluation model. Items II.K.3.30 and 31 were, however, excluded from the Order because the NRC Staff was still reviewing RELAP5YA as submitted and had not yet approved it as the revised generic evaluation model (II.K.3.30). It follows that the NRC could not order a licensee to implement something (RELAPSYA) that had not yet been approved.
II.K.3.31 required imalementation/ application of the revised model for plant specific analysis wit 1in 1 year after the generic evaluation model (RELAP5YA) was approved ~under II.K.3.30.
NRC approval for use of RELAP5YA by MYAPCo occurred in January 1989 with the issuance of an SER that contained 12 conditions. It is the position of the NRC that information concerning the implementation of TMI Action Items II.K.3.30 and II.K.3.31 was required under 10 CFR 50.54 (f) (Exhibit 18). It is further the position of the NRC that the guidance in II.K.3.30 and II.K.3.31 needed to be complied with, such that the licensee could demonstrate that its ECCS SBLOCA analysis met the requirements of 10 CFR 50.46 and Appendix K to Part 50, unless another SBLOCA method had been justified to the NRC as an acceptable EM.
Case No. 1-95 050 51 l
l i
l Upon NRC's acceptance and approval of RELAP5YA in January 1989 with the SER. l II.K.3.30 was satisfactorily closed out. TMI Action Item II.K.3.31 (plant 1 specific application of RELAP5YA) was closed out by the NRC on May 8,1989 l (Exhibit 14), after SEARS was informed that both the computer model and 1 program (i.e., the plant specific model and the RELAPSYA computer I were coerational and would "...be used to develop your [MYAPC0's] next program) fuel j reload (Cycle 12)." Based on the assertions of the licensee (NICHOLS) to the 1 l NRC (SEARS) that the developed program and code were operational, and that the
! a) plication of RELAP5YA as the revised SBLOCA EM analysis would be used for t1e Cycle 12 reload, SEARS considered implementation of the revised SBLOCA method to be complete in accordance with II.K.3.31. SEARS closed out II.K.3.31 because he was led to believe that the technical aspects of RELAP5YA, as approved by the NRC, would be met for the Cycle 12 reload.
Testimonial and documentary evidence indicate that there were problems with the plant specific application of RELAP5YA at MY after NRC approval of RELAP5YA in January 1989, and thereafter, and that it was clearly NOT l operational from a plant specific perspective as of May 8,1989, the date of i SEARS' letter. RELAP5YA was not applied to the Cycle 12 reload because YAEC i could not get the code to work properly (i.e., PCTs occasionally exceeded l 2200 F). Although the NRC was kept aware of similar problems during I development of the code prior to approval (January 1989), the NRC was never made aware that problems continued with RELAP5YA.
As a result of the inability of YAEC to successfully apply RELAPSYA to MY, as approved by the NRC, YAEC, with MYAPCo concurrence, utilized the old CE SBLOCA methodology to develop the Cycle 12 reload. Cycle 12 operated from June 1990 to February 1992. LEEDS followed SEARS as the MY PM in mid 1989. A MYAPCo document, dated in September 1989 (Exhibit 64), indicated that MYAPCo l (NICHOLS) had informed the NRC (LEEDS) that the old CE methodology would be '
used for the Cycle 12 reload. The December 1989 CPAR that was submitted to the NRC in January 1990 for the Cycle 12 reload listed the CE methodology.
Given the 1 year grace period (January 1989 January 1990) for II.K.3.31, the licensee, by continuing to use the old CE SBLOCA analysis methodology, is viewed as having been in compliance with 10 CFR 50.46 at that point.
There is no substantive evidence subsequent to the May 8, 1989, letter to suggest that the licensee attempted .to hide the use of the CE SBLOCA methodology for the Cycle 12 reload. In October 1989, LEEDS documented (Exhibit 68) the fact that RELAP5YA would not be used for the Cycle 12 reload, but he also wrote, "...the licensee will provide a submittal documenting the reason (s) for failure to implement the analysis. . ." The analysis that LEEDS wrote about was RELAP5YA as approved by the NRC. The evidence indicates the reasons for not implementing RELAP5YA included, at least in part, continuing problems a) plying the code (i.e. , PCTs greater than 2200 F) . SLIFER testified that "we" (new that a submittal of an analysis with PCTs above 2200^F could not be made to the NRC. No submittal was ever received by the NRC regarding the reasons for the failure to implement RELAPSYA as approved. Instead YAEC.
.with the knowledge of MYAPCo, undertook a " novel ap3 roach" (Exhibit 124,
, p. 90) that was non standard (Exhibit 72), and whic1 differed (Exhibit 74) from the approach accepted and approved by the NRC in the January 1989 SER (Exhibit 13).
l l Case No. 1 95 050 52 l
~ __ __ _ _ _ _. , ._,-
Because YAEC could not get RELAP5YA, as approved, to work for the MY plant, the August 1, 1990 BE/EM (non appendix K) approach was developed by tne YAEC LOCA group to address II.K.3.31, in an attempt to show compliance with 50.46.
The evidence indicates that YAEC (SUNDARAM and METEVIA) recommended to MYAPCo I i that this different. kind of ap3 roach / analysis be submitted to the NRC for l concurrence and to formalize t1e licensing basis. However, MYAPCo did not submit the pro)osed approach to NRC for concurrence, and they did not submit the analysis t1at was purportedly completed on June 1,1990, which was documented in the August 1, 1990, summary report. Instead, the licensee claims they reviewed an a)proach (BE) with NRC's' LEEDS in late 1989. The actual approach (BE/EM ion Appendix K) used to develop the August 1990 summary re) ort was never submitted, reviewed, acceated or approved by the NRC.
Based on t1e totality of'the evidence, including t1e testimony of NICHOLS and LEEDS concerning their discussion on this issue and the date of that discussion (December 6, 1989), as documented by NICHOLS (December 19, 1989 (Exhibit 73), it is evident that the " novel approach" (BE/EM Non Appendix K) was not discussed with the NRC. The analysis, as depicted in the August 1, l 1990, summary report, does not comply with II.K.3.31 or the SER, and the l l licensee. therefore, did not demonstrate the adequacy of the ECCS as required i i by 10 CFR 50.46. ,
l l The " novel approach." as described by SUNDARAM, was purportedly completed on June 1,1990, evidently to comply with the verbal commitment made by NICHOLS to have the II.K.3.31 SBLOCA analysis done by June 1, 1990 (Exhibit 73).
i LEEDS had apparently granted a verbal extension of the one year clock l requirement contained in II.K.3.31 to June 1990: the original clock was scheduled to run out in January 1990. YAEC and MYAPCo officials (SCHULTZ, THAYER, and WHITTIER) were aware of the one year clock and were attempting to meet the commitment to implement the revised SBLOCA analysis (RELAP5YA).
Noteworthy is the fact that in all the documentation reviewed by 01 during this investigation NICHOLS' December 1989 Memo (Exhibit 73), was one of the few documents that references SEARS
- May 8, 1989, letter, and even then, the
! reference is only to the II.K.3.31 schedule, not the analysis itself.
l Before, during, and after completion of the August 1,1990, unapproved SBLOCA analysis, YAEC, acting as the agent for MYAPCo. continued to attempt to apply RELAP5YA, as approved by the NRC in January 1989, in a plant specific mode.
However, problems involving oscillations of PCTs continued to plague the plant specific application. Consequently. YAEC again used the old SBLOCA 1 j methodology (CE) to develop the Cycle 13 fuel reload in April 1992.
It is the NRC's position (Exhibits 18 and 19)', that subsequent to approval of the revised SBLOCA evaluation model (RELAP5YA), once the one year grace period of II.K.3.31 ended, an approved method had to be used to demonstrate compliance with 10 CFR 50.46. In this case, RELAPSYA. as approved, required implementation by June 1, 1990. Use of any other method /model to analyze SBLOCAs, including the old methodology (CE), had to be justified to the NRC as acceptable. Absent that justification, the CE EM, which had been approved by the NRC prior to the TMI accident, was no longer acceptable to demonstrate compliance with 10 CFR 50.46.
l The licensee used the CE method for Cycle 12 (June 1990 February 1992) and l Cycle 13 (4/92 7/93), and, thus was operating in non-compliance with 10 CFR Case No. 1 95 050 53
. _- __.m __ . . _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ ___. _ _ _ _
i i
50.46 from June 1990 up until that time when RELAP5YA was implemented and i applied at MY. The evidence indicates that RELAP5YA, as approved, was not ,
implemented until June 1993 (Covered in Allegation No. 2), due to the !
continuing problems with oscillations of the PCTs. Therefore, MY was I operating in an unanalyzed state. The Cycle 13 CPAR (December 1991) that was sent to the NRC in April 1992 for information only, listed the CE SBLOCA
( analysis as the relied upon method; however, the continuing problems associated with the implementation / application of RELAP5YA were not, in any way, discussed with NRC.
In addition, in January 1991, YAEC, in response to a service request from l MYAPCo, conducted a review of the impact of lower steam generator pressure on L the MY LOCA analysis. That review used as the "... licensing basis small break i LOCA Analysis...." the unapproved August 1, 1990, BE/EM (non Appendix K) analysis. In January 1993, a 10 CFR 50.59 evaluation regarding the degradation of the steam generator's heat transfer capability (Exhibit 94) was I completed by MYAPCo. The analysis completed in January 1991 by YAEC, using the BE/EM (Non Appendix K) approach (Exhibit 90), was used by MYAPCo as part of the January 1993 10 CFR 50.59 evaluation. Consequently, an unapproved SBLOCA method was used and relied upon by the licensee in an apparent violation of 10 CFR 50.59 requirements (Exhibit 95).
By letter dated November 5, 1990 (Exhibit 5), MYAPCo proposed a change to MY Tech Specs which effectively would remove cycle-specific core o)erating limits (COLs) and replace them with Tech Spec 5.14. It was proposed tlat TS 5.14 would require: 1) that the COLs be determined so that all applicable limits
. of the safety analysis were met; 2) that a list of the previously a3 proved l analytical methods to determine the COLs be included; and 3) that t1e derived l COLs be documented in the COLR. On November 18, 1991, NRC accepted the i j proposed change and issued a TS Amendment (Exhibit 106) 1 In December 1991 and April 1992, respectively, MYAPCo transmitted the !
Cycles 12 and 13 COLRs to the NRC, W11ch indicated that "the values and limits presented within this section have been derived using the NRC approved i methodologies listed in Technical Saecification 5.14." Cycles 12 and 13 CPARs
, referenced the CE SBLOCA analysis, ]ut RELAP5YA, not the CE SBLOCA method, was l listed as an approved method in TS 5.14, from which the COLs were derived.
! MYAPCo's JONES thought the inconsistency was an oversight: FRIZZLE characterized the difference as a discrepancy; and others testified that the TS listed all codes that had been approved, regardless of whether they were l used for a specific cycle. They advised that the TS was )repared for future
- use, that the SBLOCA is not the limiting transient, and tlat regardless, the COLs were established by the LBLOCA, not the SBLOCA. BOYNTON and JONES agreed that SBLOCA analysis is a 3 art of the licensing basis analyses which demonstrate compliance wit 1 10 CFR 50.46 for the COLs. However, RELAP5YA for
< the SBLOCA analysis was, in fact, listed in the TS that had been approved by l the NRC in November 1991, based on the licensee's proposed TS change request.
The bottom line is that the CE method for SBLOCA was relied upon for Cycles 12 l
and 13 operation. The CE SBLOCA method had been approved prior to the TMI accident, and it is clear from testimony that YAEC and MYAPCo were constantly l working to implement RELAPSYA since its approval as the revised SBLOCA method.
4 Case No. 1 95 050 54
i The discrepancy between the TS and the CPARs appears to be inconsistent with 10 CFR 50.36(b), because the TS did not accurately reflect safety analysis information.
Conclusion No. 1:
f Based on the evider 2 developed during this investigation, 0I concludes that, for the period June 1990 through May 1993 (during Cycles 12 and 13), MYAPCo willfully failed to implement an acceptable EM (the RELAP5YA SBLOCA analysis as approved by the NRC via a January 1989 SER) as required by 10 CFR 50.46.
i Alleaation No. 2: RELAP5YA was deliberately implemented in June 1993 l (Cycle 14) in a manner not consistent with the conditions of l the NRC's January 1989 SER and the requirements of 10 CFR 50.46.
1 Evidence Pertinent Documentation .
i
- 1. A YAEC memorandum, dated March 13, 1991, from SUNDARAM to the LOCA Group (Exhibit 97), reflects continued work on the SBLOCA (RELAPSYA) analysis for Cycle 13, and that based on scoping calculations, an Appendix K based approach was being pursued. A YAEC memorandum, dated April 11, 1991, from SUNDARAM to the LOCA Group (Exhibit 98), also reflects continued work on the SBLOCA analysis for Cycle 13 based on an l Appendix K approach.
AGENT *S NOTE: YAEC efforts to get RELAP5YA to work as an EM, as
- approved via the NRC's SER, continued to fail and resulted in the old CE methodology being used for the Cycle 13 reload. It is clear that the decision on whether the SBLOCA analysis for MY would be performed as an Appendix K approach depended solely on whether FCT's were less than 2200*F.
- 2. Personal handwritten notes (Exhibit 99) by NICHOLS depict the following:
on April 14, 1991, during a discussion with B0YNTON, it was "Dossible" to use Appendix K methods.and get acceptable results (p. 4): on June 6, 1991, again during an ap]arent discussion with DBB [BOYNTON]
"SBLOCA dealing w/ case w1ere PC temp exceeds traditional App K methods (still evaluating)" (p. 5): on July 19, 1991, during an apparent discussion with PLA [ ANDERSON], NICHOLS wrote about increased attention to LOCA by the [NRC] staff; that "all recent LOCA attention may spill over onto us!"; and that a 50 F increase must go to NRC (p. 6).
- 3. Handwritten notes, dated June 1991 [by BOYNTON], depicts, under the heading SBLOCA, that PCT's exceeded 2200 F for 0.3 2ft break, with an additional note, "believe model abnormality. Write off and [or "in"]
document" (Exhibit 103).
- 4. Excerpts from a YAEC memorandum, dated June 21, 1991, with attachment, from SLIFER to Distribution, note that a licensing position was being Case No. 1-95 050 55
formulated for SBLOCA based on calculations performed to date (Exhibit 100).
AGENT'S NOTE: MYAPCo's licensing position for SBLOCA should have been resolved one year after approval of their revised method (RELAP5YA) in the January 1989 SER, or no later than June 1990.
- 5. Handwritten notes, signed by Bruce [SLIFER] to Pete [ ANDERSON], contain the initials of RKS [SUNDARAM] and the apparent date of July 6,1991, depict the following SLIFER concern: "a.) the limiting small break from the 3 resent work is a different break size from the analysip of record, whic1 2was based on a BE break spectrum study (i.e., 0.15 ft vs.
0.4 ft ). b.) the PCT 0.15 ft 2> PCT large break, thus making small break LOCA's more limiting than large breaks and in validating current analysis of record" (Exhibit 101).
AGENT'S NOTE: The SBLOCA analysis that resulted in the 0.4 fta limiting break is the analysis that was documented in the August 1, 1990 SBLOCA BE/EM summary report that was never submitted to the NRC. Noteworthy, is the fact that SLIFER, the manager of NED, called the August 1990 analysis the " analysis of record."
- 6. A handwritten note from Bruce [SLIFER] to Ramu [SUNDARAM], undated, reflects, "I think this helps explain why MY is difficult and it has nothing to do with computer codes or modeling, per se" (Exhibit 102).
- 7. Handwritten notes, dated July 18, 1991, from SWANBON's file at YAEC, titled, "Results Summary 1991 RELAP5YA Analysis)," indicate that for Cycle 12. PCT for 0.1 ft'(breat was greater than 2200 F: for Cycle 13, PCT for cases at 0.3 ft 2break were greater than 2200 F: that various ap3 roaches were attempted to improve PCTs; and that non physical belavior was observed (Exhibit 104).
- 8. A YAEC memorandum to distribution, dated August 15. 1991, discusses the tracking of the TMI Action Items, and indicates that II.K.3.30 and II.K.3.31 were completed, that no verification was required, but to notify NRC if the information was incorrect (Exhibit 105).
AGENT'S NOTE: This is the timeframe when YAEC reportedly discovered that the August 1990 analysis was not submitted to the NRC.
- 9. An NRC Letter to MYAPCo, dated November 18, 1991, approves License Amendment #124, which removes cycle saecific caerating limits from the Plant TS and incorporates them into t1e COLR (Exhibit 106).
- 10. MY's Cycle 13 CPAR, dated December 1991, as prepared by YAEC [ submitted to the NRC on April 7,1992, for informational purposes], sti3ulates 7
that the SBLOCA analysis aerformed by CE for Cycle 4 showed t1at the limiting break size was t1e 0.5 ft break, 2
with a PCT of 1348"F, and that the results of previous analyses were applicable to Cycle 13 (Exhibit 8).
Case No. 1 95 050 56
l l
l
- 11. Handwritten notes from SWANBON's files, dated February 28, 1992, reflect l that several scoping analyses continued to result in PCTs greater that {
2200'F (Exhibit 107) . <
- 12. Handwritten notes from SWANBON's files, dated March 17, 1992, show I various SBLOCA computations with PCTs exceeding 2200'F (Exhibit 108). )
- 13. Handwritten notes from SWANBON's files, dated April 8,1992, reflect )
PCTs greater that 2200 F (Exhibit 109), i l
- 14. Handwritten notes by SWANBON, dated October 27, 1992 (Exhibit 110),
reflect that the MY SBLOCA has not met 10 CFR 50.46 criteria. SWANBON notes that several analyses had been performed with different input ,
model configurations. The purpose of these analyses was to obtain a complete break spectrum, covering the complete range of break size, ,
showing that the peak break size had been addressed with the results I meeting the 10 CFR 50.46 acceptance criteria. This goal had not yet been met (p. 1). The notes also describe the evolution of various downcomer nodalization models to resolve the excessive ECCS bypass (pp. 4 10) .
- 15. BOYNTON's handwritten notes, dated December 1992 (Exhibit 111), outline l the Cycle 14 Appendix K type calculation for SBLOCA. Notations indicate that improvements to allow Appendix K SBLOCA are time steps (few time steps near break).
- 16. A 10 CFR 50.59 determination by MYAPCo, Re: steam generator degradation, dated January 30, 1993, contains a January 25, 1991, memorandum from YAEC (GHAUS), which identifies the August 1,1990. BE/EM RELAP5YA analysis as the licensing basis SBLOCA analysis (Exhibits 90 and 94).
- 17. Handwritten notes, dated February 1993, reflect a LOCA 20' PCT change due to a computer change (Exhibit 112).
- 18. The MY Cycle 14 CPAR, dated April 1993 (Exhibit 10), submitted on August 25, 1993, for NRC information, notes that the SBLOCA was re analyzed during Cycle 13 using the RELAP5YA computer code, which had '
been approved by the NRC for SBLOCA analysis. The SBLOCA analysis2 included a spectrum of cold leg breaks ranging in size from 0.1 ft to
- 0.35 ft', using four axial power shapes from the large break LOCA analysis, with the corresponding PLHGR LOCA limit values. Calculated ,
PCTs were lower than those predicted in the current LBLOCA analysis. '
Thus, the CPAR concluded that the LBLOCA analysis continued to provide j the limiting LOCA scenario for Maine Yankee.
- 19. A YAEC document (YAEC 1868), dated June 1, 1993, "MY SBLOCA Analysis,"
identifies SWANBON, SCHOR, and SUNDARAM as contributors. The " ABSTRACT" indicates that the report [YAEC-1868] summarizes SBLOCA evaluations using RELAP5YA for MY, which were performed in conformance with the reauirements of 10 CFR 50.46 and aost-TMI Action Items II.K.3.30 and II.'K.3.31 (Exhibit 113, p. 4). T1e " Background" section of YAEC 1868 Case No. 1 95 050 57
' indicates that the August 1WO SBLOCA analysis closed Item II.K.3.31 for MY (Exhibit 113, p. 10).
AGENT'S NOTE: According to testimony, this SBLOCA analysis report
[YAEC 1868] was not submitted to NRC, due to the May 8, 1989. NRC letter from SEARS.
- 20. A YAEC memorandum, dated July 30, 1993, SUNDARAM to R. CLARK, notes the completion of QA on the RELAPSYA computer code (Exhibit 115).
- 21. A MYAPCo letter, acted August 27, 1991, informs the NRC that MYAPCo found an error of 7?F in the Cycle 12 calculated fuel PCT in the LBLOCA evaluation. MYAPCo advises that the report is required by 10 CFR 50.46 ;
(a)(3)(ii) and demonstrates MYAPCo's continuing compliance with the ,
requirements of 10 CFR 50.46, with respect to ECCS performance i calculations (Exhibit 117). 1
- 22. Undated handwritten notes obtained from SWANBON's files reflect the results of work conducted over the period 1990 through 1993, and show that PCTs exceeded 2200^F (Exhibit 118).
- 23. A HYAPCo memorandum, dated August 10, 1995, refers to 10 CFR 50.46 and discusses clarification of the reporting requirements and protocol for reporting changes (Exhibit 119).
- 24. An NRR evaluation of the downcomer nodalization used by YAEC for the MY SBLOCA analysis, with the RELAP5YA code for Cycles 13 and 14 operation, concludes that the SBLOCA analysis for those cycles was performed with an unreviewed and unacceptable EM (Exhibit 121).
Interviews I. The following current and former NRC employees were interviewed by NRC:0I and NRC:0IG regarding Allegation No. 2. l 1
Re interview of SEARS (Exhibit 147) i SEARS is not sure he was aware of the conditions of the January 1989 SER, but said that an NRC PH cannot supersede a SER.
Interview of H0DGES (Exhibit 133)
H0DGES said the SER identified a number of things that needed to be done, specifically, to submit the analysis for review by the staff per condition 7 (pp. 17 and 18). H0DGES said SEARS' letter did not suaersede the SER, but only closed II.K.3.31: MYAPCo was still required to su)mit the RELAP5YA analysis for NRC review (pp. 49 51).
II. The following YAEC employees were interviewed by NRC:01 [the NRC:0IG also attended selected interviews] regarding Allegation No. 2.
Case No. 1 95 050 58
- - . .. .- . - .. . .- . . . ~ - . . . - - . . - . . - - - .
Re interview of METEVIA (Exhibit 155)
METEVIA testified that he was knowledgeable that there were limitations with the. code [RELAP5YA] above .35a ft , but he could not state that what those limitations were. He does not know if the NRC was made aware of the limitations (pp. 103 and 104).
Interview of SUNDARAM (Exhibit 124)
SUNDARAM said that in 1991, while preparing the CPAR for Cycle 13, a question about the plan for the SBLOCA for Cycle 13 arose. It was felt that they could not put the BE analysis in, because they found out that it had not gone to the NRC. SUNDARAM said the memorandum [ dated January 2,1990] identified that
'this approach was different from the original SER and had recommended that it be submitted to the NRC if MYAPCo wanted to use it as a licensing basis. He said that was not done, so for Cycle 13 the only thing they felt comfortable about was that SBLOCAs were less limiting than LBLOCAs (pp. 96 115).
SUNDARAM said that, when the Cycle 13 reload was ready to go, the LOCA group was not finished with the new analysis, but they knew enough, at that 3oint, to say they had caught the limiting break. The LOCA group then went t1 rough the SER restrictions one by one and completed the analysis at the end of 1992 or early 1993. YAEC finally put a report out in June 1993 and was comfortable they had complied with all the requirements of the original SER. At that point, no flag went up anywhere that said they needed to submit the analysis to the NRC (pp. 97 100).
SUNDARAM said the only guidance on nodalization was that which had been presented (by YAEC) on Loft L5-1, which was different from the old sample
! nodalization depicted in the original submittal for RELAP5YA. YAEC made a very small nodalization change between 1989 and 1992, and then they went back and reassessed against the Loft L5-1 experiment to make sure that it was consistent. They felt they were in compliance with the requirements of the SER (pp. 102 and 103).
I AGENT'S NOTE: The changes to the nodalization are addressed in detail in Exhibit 121.
SUNDARAM indicated that the August 1990 BE EM analysis is not the analysis l that complied with the SER, He said that the analysis that complied with that l SER was the June 1993 report (YAEC 1868) (pp. 108 110).
i SUNDARAM said YAEC complied with the SER restrictions, except for actually making the plant specific submittals. The June 1993 report provided a listing of options that were self explanatory in terms of justifications (3. 126). He testified that, in the 1989 timeframe, they were used to making su3mittals and this was the first time that someone [NRC] said to hold onto an analysis, instead of submitting it for review (p.131).
Re interview of SUNDARAM (Exhibit 159)
SUNDARAM said RELAP5YA was used in the 1984 Pump Trip Study and the i nodalization was as described to the NRC, which was the only nodalization seen Case No. 1 95 050 59
by the NRC (pp. 18 21). He said that after the last submittal to the NRC, in 1988, the nodalization change was not seen by the NRC. SUNDARAM also said the analysis of record supports the current licensing basis and complies with 10 CFR 50.46 (pp. 28 and 29). SUNDARAM also said YAEC 1868 did not discuss the split downcomer, because it was a summary report, and he did not feel a
! need to submit the report to the NRC (pp. 31-34). He agreed that for MY, approved evaluation models are required (pp. 10 and 11). .
SUNDARAM said the analysis that terminated at 0.352 ft is not significant. He said it did not need not be run beyond that, because they understood the -
trends were a function of break size, and they were very confident that around .
l .15 ft "should" be the limiting break for MY for the Appendix K EM i l calculation. What they were not able to demonstrate in 1993 with the code was a sustained recovery of the plant beyond the time PCT occurred (pp. 38 42).
l Interview of HARVEY (Exhibit 148) l l
HARVEY testified that through his input for the June 1993 analysis, and from what he learned from a discussion with Glenn [SWANBON] in the , fall of 1995, the code [RELAPSYA] experienced ". . . code failure. . ." at .35 ft , and for that reason runs greater than .35 ftz were not attemated. He said they [YAEC] were satisfied, through trending and engineering jucgement, that the largpr size breaks in the SBLOCA runs would not be more limiting than ~the .15 ft break identified (pp. 118 122).
Interview of SCHOR (Exhibit 149)
SCHOR said that II.K.3.31 was closed out for MYAPCo by the 1993 analysis
(). 56). SCHOR said the 1993 analysis used a different " cross flow K," one t1at was different than that provided to the NRC (p. 82). SCHOR said 1993 analysis complied with all requirements of the 1989 SER, except for the submittal portion. It was not submitted because of the [May 8, 1989] letter from the NRC project manager (pp. 87 90).
SCHOR said that, although the code failed at .35 ft , in June 1993, the LOCA group felt they had located the worst break (p). 132 133). SCHOR acknowledged
.that after the December 1995 allegations she clanged the time steps and the code ran up to .5 ft' without failing (pp. 138 139). She was not aware whether the NRC was informed that the code had failed at .35 ft' (p.145).
Interview of THAYER (Exhibit 151)
THAYER disclosed that he held weekly meetings with MY projects and others, and became aware that the SBLOCA analysis was a major project effort around 1993
()p. 22 25). He does not recall problems with SBLOCA being discussed, even t1ough a memo addressed to him indicates that the development of the SBLOCA analysis had not gone well (pp. 28 and 3133).
Interview of SCOTT (Exhibit 154)
SCOTT testified that RELAP5YA, as approved by the NRC in January 1989, was not implemented at HY until Cycle 14 [0ctober 1993], because of the difficulties that were encountered. He stated, ". . .the code prevented them from being able Case No. 1 95 050 60
i to implement it..." SCOTT was not aware of whether the NRC was notified of the difficulties in im)1ementation. He said that such difficulties with an I approved code were ratier unusual (pp. 35, 40, 41, 46, and 47). I SCOTT advised that he did some research in 1996 on 10 CFR 50.46 reporting. He ]
found that other vendors and licenses reported changes and errors on both ]
SBLOCA and LBLOCA, unlike MY's past practice (p. 157). ;
i Interview of SWANBON (Exhibit _L56).
SWANBON said for the RELAP5YA work they did not change any of the nodalization ,
outside of the vessel: whereas for inside the vessel, they used the same i nodalization scheme, but in the core, nodes were added. SWANBON estimated !
that the change was from six nodes to 12 nodes (pp. 25 26). l l
SWANBON said during 1991 and 1992 there were computer runs that resulted in l PCTs exceeding 2200 F, which he reported to SCHOR and SUNDARAM. It was determined that the aroblem was either with the RELAP5YA code or the input, or a combination of bot 1 (pp 46 48). SWANBON said they tried numerous ways to correct the problem and, in the final model, used a high loss coefficient at the junction that connects the two portions of the downcomer (3. 51). He does.
not know whether the changes he made to the input should have 3een reported to the NRC and did not consider doing so (pp. 62 63).
SWANBON said the June 1993 SBLOCA analysi.s was not provided to the NRC because of the letter written by the NRC project manager (p. 65). He said the June 1993 SBLOCA analysis code " failed" at .35 ft2 . The failure was discussed with SUNDARAM, SCHOR, and ANDERSON, and it was decided the PCTs were on a downward trend, with increasing break sizes, therefore, it was not necessary to analyze l- any larger break sizes. SWANBON added that, to his recollection, the NRC was I
not made aware of the " failure" (pp. 66 68).
SWANBON said he was not sure what 10 CFR 50.46 required to be analyzed, but t
thought it was to capture the most limiting break and be able to demonstrate thatithadbeencaptuped. SWANBON said that, subsequent to the allegations, YAEC completed a .5 ft break analysis (pp. 72 74).
l Upon reading the January 1989 SER, SWANBON said he could not explain why the June 1993 analysis (YAEC 1868) was not submitted to the NRC, as detailed in SER conditions 7 and 12, and stated that he was not involved in that decision !
(pp. 76 80).
1 ,
Interview of ANDERSON (Exhibit 157) i ANDERSON said the May 8,1989, letter superseded the recuirements of the SER,
! and,- therefore, the June 1993 analysis was not submittec (pp.163 and 186).
l He said SUNDARAM convinced him that the LOCA group had found the limiting case in the June 1993 analysis, even though the break size only went up to .35 ft' (pp. 190 194).
ANDERSON said II.K.3.31 was closed by the June 1993 SBLOCA analysis. He said the statement in the " Background" section of YAEC 1868, which stated that the SBLOCA analysis [ August 1,1990] using Cycle 12 inputs closed out Item l
Case No. 1 95 050 61
I i
l l II.K.3.31 for MY. was in error. He said in December 1995 he provided the
(_ report to the NRC PM and attached a memo indicating this statement was an error. He said YAEC 1868 was not submitted to MY. He also said he may be the only one that thought that_ they [YAEC/MY] still needed to complete the EM to ,
satisfy II.K.3.31. He said most people thought the SEARS May 8,1989, letter !
closed out II.K.3.31 (pp.178182).
Interview of SCHULTZ (Exhibit 158)
SCHULTZ also said the June 1993 analysis was not submitted to the NRC because of the SEARS May 8, 1989, letter. He did not recall any consideration being given that theto June submitting 1993 the document analysis to NRC had code (pp.at180 failure .35181).z: SCHULTZ ft however, acknowledged the NRC was not notified, because YAEC saw the PCT trending downwards (pp. 185-186).
Interview of KADAK (Exhibit 160) i KADAK testified that it was not until 1993 that YAEC actually completed a SBLOCA analysis that complied with the SER conditions, and which resolved the modeling problems of the previous years. He did not know if the NRC was kept abreast of the modeling problems after the January 1989 NRC approval of RELAPSYA (pp. 28 and 29).
III. The following MYAPCo employees were interviewed by NRC:01 [the NRC:0IG also attended selected interviews] regarding Allegation No. 2.
Interview of BOYNTON (Exhibit 126)
B0YNTON said the RELAP5YA problems were discussed at most meetings, in varying detail, and that the SBLOCA analysis problems using RELAP5YA were finally resolved in 1993 (pp. 22 24). He claims that in Cycle 14 the RELAPSYA SBLOCA analysis became the analysis of record, when they submitted the CPAR, which documented the basis for the operating limits. The submission of the CPAR to the NRC resulted in a change to the analysis of record, from the CE to the RELAP5YA SBLOCA analysis (pp. 98 and 99).
Re-interview of BOYNTON (Exhibit 163)
BOYNTON testified that he was unaware in 1993 that the RELAP5YA analysis
[YAEC 1868] had failed at the .35 ft 2break size. However, he added that, even if he had been made aware of the failure, it would not have been a concern to him. BOYNTON indicated that YAEC 1868 was not submitted to the NRC and, further, he does not recall any discussions concerning possibly notifying the NRC of the code failure / termination (pp. 101 104).
Interview of HEBERT (Exhibit 127)
HEBERT said he understood that the RELAP5YA SBLOCA analysis stopped at .35 ft 2 and that the curve was going down (pp. 91 and 92).
1 Case No. 1-95 050 62 I
-Re interview of HEBERT (Exhibit 161) l HEBERT said that the RELAP5YA analysis was not a licensing basis analysis or the analysis of record until approved by the NRC (p. 39 ). HEBERT said no one had informed him that the SBLOCA was more limiting (p. 44). He also said i that, although the code was approved, it did not become a part of the' MYAPCo .
license until submitted to the NRC (p. 53).
Re interview of NICHOLS (Exhibit 162)
NICHOLS does not recall beipg notified by YAEC that the RELAP5YA code runs stopped er failed at .35 ft in the 1993 analysis of SBLOCA (pp.127 and 128).
Re-interview of JORDAN (Exhibit 164)
JORDAN said RELAPSYA became the analysis of record in 1993, but he did not know who made the decision to proceed that way (pp. 13 and 14). !
Interview of WHITTIER (Exhibit 130)
WHITTIER said Cycle 14 was when RELAP5YA became the analysis of record and was completed using an EM technique (p. 48), WHIlTIER said that, for MY, the LBLOCA is the limiting transient for purposes of 10_CFR 50.46 reporting (p. 121).
Interview of JONES (Exhibit 166) !
JONES disclosed that Cycles 13 and 14 were operated under 10 CFR 50.59 and did involve a TS change (pp.11 and 12). j JONES said a copy of YAEC 1868, containing the June 1993 RELAP5YA SBLOCA analysis, was apparently transmitted from YAEC to MYAPCo (pp. 47 49). He does not recall discussions about YAEC 1868 at MYAPCo and does not know why the report was not submitted to the NRC (pp. 50 and 51). JONES was not involved in the creation or QA of the June 1993 SBLOCA report, and he was not aware ,
that the analysis only went up to a break size of .35 ft2 (pp. 47 52).
' JONES asserted that the June 1993 analysis, as documented in YAEC 1868, was not the analysis of record as he view the FSAR as the analysis of record (p. 53). JONES agreed that the licensee should have been made aware of the 2
i RELAP5YA code failure after .35 ft : he would have wanted to know if he had
! worked on the issue (pp. 57 59).
JONES acknowledged having an awareness that PCTs'were exceeding, or were very close to 2200'F, after aaproval of RELAP5YA, but never considered reporting that to the NRC. He dic not hear any discussions about possibly telling the NRC of excessive PCTs, because the results were not real, and it was not his responsibility (pp. 60 64 and 73-74).
1 JONES opined that 10 CFR 50.46 only required reporting under the limiting
- transient, which, in the case of MY, is the LBLOCA (p. 81). However, since 1996, MY has adopted the position of reporting limiting breaks under both SBLOCA and LBLOCA. He has learned since the allegations that, generally.
l Case No. 1 95 050 63 i
f
1 other licensees report under both SBLOCA and LBLOCA. He is not aware of any other licensees reporting under only one break category (pp. 82 and 83).
JONES acknowledged that he created a memo, at BOYNTON's direction, in August 1995, regarding 10 CFR 50.46 reporting. He stated that his work on the memo was merely coincidental to the allegations and the issue of SBLOCA runs showing PCTs in excess of 2200 F (pp. 84, 85, and 90). MYAPCo, in JONES' mind, was in compliance with 10 CFR 50.46 reporting requirements by the use of the CPAR submittals to the NRC (p. 94). )
Aaent's Analysis In June 1993, four years and five months after the January 1989 NRC approval of RELAP5YA, MYAPCo/YAEC finally completed a plant specific application of the RELAP5YA SBLOCA analysis. This analysis was summarized in the MY Cycle 14 CPAR, which was sent to the NRC for information only in August 1993.
MYAPCo/YAEC claim the delay in implementation was caused by varied problems, such as personnel shortages, limited computer time, and modeling difficulties that were experienced by YAEC in the " plant specific application" of RELAP5YA.
However, there is no evidence that the modeling difficulties were reported to the NRC. Instead, MYAPCo relied upon verbal communications that were documented by NICHOLS, explaining only the scheduling delays to the NRC, and not the technical difficulties encountered in modeling RELAP5YA. The latest documented conversation by NICHOLS (December 19, 1989) indicates that he merely informed the NRC on December 6,1989, that the SBLOCA analysis using RELAP5YA would be completed by June 1,1990 (at the beginning of Cycle 12)
(Exhibit 73).
The June 1993 SBLOCA analysis, YAEC 1868 (Exhibit 113), was not submitted for NRC review, as* specified by the January 1989 SER conditions. Specifically, Condition No. 7 requested the licensee to provide a future plant specific licensing submittal to justify the code options selected and the input data:
and Condition Nos. 4, 8, 9, and 12, required justification (through submittal) and sensitivity studies regarding the plant model's nodalization. MYAPCo/YAEC claims the SBLOCA analysis was not provided to the NRC due to the May 8,1989, SEARS letter. MYAPCo/YAEC contend that the SEARS letter directed MYAPCo to retain the SBLOCA analysis for future NRC inspection, and that it nullified all SER submittal requirements.
Documentary and testimonial evidence indicates that the SEARS letter was met with confusion and puzzlement by some officials at YAEC, ba one of the few documents proffered by MYAPCo/YAEC, that referred to the SEARS letter to any extent, was the memorandum of conversation written by NICHOLS on December 19, 1989, of a December 6" meeting with LEEDS. Information in that document oniv refers to schedular commitments and not to the actual SBLOCA analysis.
l Further, testimony does not substantiate that the letter was a significant communication at the time it was received, yet MYAPCo/YAEC would now have the NRC believe that the letter was very significant, in that it superseded the need to submit any RELAP5YA SBLOCA analysis, even the one completed in June 1993.
i Testimony by SEARS establishes that he neither intended nor conveyed that l MYAPCo did not need to comply with the technical conditions of the January l
l Case No. 1-95 050 64
1989 SER. SEARS testified that he was surprised to learn that MYAPCo did not use RELAP5YA to conduct the SBLOCA analysis for Cycle 12, and asserted that he would not have written the May 8,1989, letter, if he had been informed there were problems with implementation of the NRC approved RELAP5YA EM.
As a result of the December 1995 allegations, the NRC staff reviewed the June l 1993 RELAP5YA SBLOCA analysis for Cycle 14 [YAEC 1868] and determined that a i full break spectrum analysis had not been conducted as required by 10 CFR l 50.46. YAEC-1868 indicates the analysis of the .35 fta break " terminated" shortly after actuation of the safety injection tank. due to numerical convergence errors, even with very small time ste]s. Testimony indicates that i-the SBLOCA analysis in YAEC 1868 only analyzed a areak spectrum up to .35 ft 2 ;
because of,the numerical instability. Documentation further discloses that the .35 ft break is smaller than the SBLOCA limiting breaks that were i
l determined the August 1990 byBE/EM the CE analytical RELAP5YA method analysis by YAEC in Cycles
(.4 ft 4 thrp) ugh testimony Further, 13 (.5 ftz) and in ;
indicates that YAEC used engineeping judgement to extrapolate the rest of the small break spectrum from .35 ft to .5 ft', to conclude that the limiting break size of 0.15 ft was captured.
10 CFR 50.46 requires that the ECCS cooling aerformance be calculated by an acceptable EM for a number of different brea( sizes and locations, sufficient !
, to provide assurance that the most limiting break is calculated. NRC's !
I position is that MYAPCo had to demonstrate that the RELAP5YA code would I reliably calculate the PCT for all break sizes in the SBLOCA spectrum (see !
l NRC's Order, dated in January 1996). SCHULTZ, and others, testified that the l RELAP5YA code " failed" at break size .35 2ft and greater. Therefore, l MYAPCo/YAEC did not demonstrate that the RELAP5YA code reliably calculated the 2
PCT for break sizes of .35 ft andgreaterintheSBLOCAspectrum.
l Terminating the code runs at .35 ft does not provide the reliability or assurance required by 10 CFR 50.46. The SER permitted the use of RELA l
SBLOCA up to .7 ft , but when applied to MY, RELAP5YA failed at The 2
.35 ft,P5YA on evidence indicates that the NRC was not notified of the code failure.
Problems of excessive ECC bypass in the use of RELAP5YA for MY had been
- experienced for many years. YAEC initiated steps to try to resolve the bypass problem, including making changes in the downcomer nodalization to force penetration of the safety injection water into the downcomer. As a result of i the December 1995 allegations, the NRC found that the RELAP5YA downcomer nodalization for SBLOCA analysis, used for the operation of Cycles 14 and 15 (and retroactively for Cycle 13), differed from the approved January 1989 SER.
The evidence indicates that the NRC was never notified of this change in the l downcomer nodalization. Therefore, for these cycles, YAEC utilized an unreviewed and unapproved downcomer nodalization as 3 art of the EM used in the June 1993 SBLOCA analysis for MY (YAEC 1868) (see Ex11 bit 121).
SUNDARAM testified that he was responsible for reviewing the SER conditions L and felt the June 1993 analysis (YAEC 1868), as implemented for Cycle 14, i
complied with all the requirements of the January 1989 SER with the exception l of the submittal conditions. He contends that the submittal conditions were negated by the 1989 SEARS letter. SUNDARAM, however, acknowledged that very small nodalization changes were, in fact, made between 1989 and 1992.
l l Case No. 1 95 050 65
l l l l
(
l . Conclusion No. 2 l l
Based on the evidence developed during _this investigation. OI concludes that ;
i MYAPCo/YAEC willfully failed to implement the RELAP5YA EM. in the June 1993 '
analysis for Cycle 14, in a manner consistent with the NRC's January 1989 SER and the requirements of 10 CFR 50.46.
1 1
1 l
l I
l l
l l
Case No. 1 95 050 66
SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION
.. l
- On September 4,1996, William P. SELLERS, Esq., Senior. Legal Advisor for Regulatory Enforcement, General Litigation and Legal Advice Section, Criminal Division, U.S. Department of Justice.. Suite 200 West, 1001 G Street, N.W.
Washington, DC 20001, was apprised of the results of the investigation.
Mr. SELLERS recommended that the Report of Investigation be referred to the ;
cognizant U.S. Attorney's' office for prosecutive review. On September 6,'
1996, contact was established with U.S. Attorney's office, Portland, Maine. A :
copy of the ROI will be forwarded for their review. !
I i
1 l l 1
i I
}
Case No. 1 95 050 .67 r w-r -
4
- l l
I THIS PAGE LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY l
l l
1 Case No. 1 95-050 68
\
l l LIST OF EXHIBITS Exhibit L No. Descriotion
- 1. Investigation Status Report, dated December 6, 1995.
- 2. Allegation package, dated December 5, 1995.
- 3. MYAPCo Cycle 12. CPAR, excerpts dated December 18, 1989. l
- 4. NRC letter to MYAPCo, TS amendment #116, dated May 17, 1990.
1 \
- 5. MYAPCo Proposed Change No. 151, dated November 5. 1990, with attachment, l i
- 6. MYAPCo Letter to NRC, COLR for Cycle 12, dated December 18, 1991.
l
- 7. MYAPCo Letter to NRC, COLR for Cycle 13, dated April 7,1992.
- 8. MYAPCo Cycle 13 CPAR, YAEC-1830, dated December 1991.
- -9. MYAPCo Letter to NRC, Cycle 14 COLR, dated August 25, 1993.
l l 10. MYAPCo Cycle 14 CPAR, YAEC 1864, dated April 13, 1993.
1
-11. Excerpts from NUREG 0737, " Clarification of THI Action Plan i Requirements ". dated November 1980. !
l
- 12. YAEC Letter to NRC, RELAP5YA submittal, dated January 14, 1983.
l 13. NRC Letter to MYAPCo, received at MYAPCo January 26, 1989, with j l attached SER and TER for RELAPSYA.
I
- 14. NRC Letter to MYAPCo, SEARS to FRIZZLE, dated May 8, 1989, with j attached official NRC copy.
l 15.
NRRRequestforInvestigation,datedJanuqy5,1996.
- 18. _NRC:0GC Memorandum to 0I, dated June 13, 1996.
- 19. NRC:NRR Memorandum to 0I, dated June 19, 1996.
- 20. MYAPCo Letter to NRC, dated September 22, 1977, with attachment. l L- i
- 21. MYAPCo Letter to NRC, dated June 9, 1980, with attachment. )
{~
- 22. MYAPCo Letter to NRC, dated November 21, 1980. l l.- Case No. 1-95 050 69 l
- 23. MYAPCo Letter to NRC, dated December 15, 1980.
- 24. NRC Letter to MYAPCo dated July 10, 1981, with attached NRC Order.
- 25. MYAPCo letter to NRC, dated December 16, 1981.
- 26. MYAPCo . letter to NRC, dated January 15,.1982.
NRC Letter to MYAPCo. dated March 14, 1983, with attached NRC 27.
Order.
- 28. Handwritten Notes, dated-April 1983.
- 29. NRC Letter to MYAPCo dated April 15, 1986, enclosing an SER on i Reactor Coolant Pump Trip. I
- 30. YAEC Letter to NRC, dated June 30, 1987, with attachment.
- 31. MYAPCo Memorandum, JORDAN to WHITTIER, dated September 9, 1987.
- 32. MYAPCo Memorandum, JORDAN to WHITTIER, dated October 15, 1987.
l
- 33. MYAPCo Letter to NRC, dated December 7, 1987.
- 34. YAEC Letter to NRC, dated January 15, 1988.
35, YAEC Memorandum, dated February 10, 1988, with attachment.
- 36. YAEC Memorandum, dated March 8, 1988, with attachment.
- 37. YAEC Memorandum, dated March 17, 1988, with attachment.
- 38. YAEC Memorandum, dated August 26, 1988, with attachment.
- 39. MYAPCo Memorandum, dated November 10, 1988, with attachment. >
- 40. .YAEC Memorandum, dated January 31, 1989, with attachment.
- 41. MYAPCo Memorandum, dated November 1, 1989, with attachments.
- 42. MYAPCo NSD Performance Evaluation Matrix, dated Octobe 5,1990, with attachment.
- 43. YAEC Memorandum, dated April 24, 1991, with attachment.
- 44. YAEC Memorandum, dated January 31, 1992, with attachment.
l 45f YAEC Memorandum, dated August 26, 1992, with attachment.
4i. YAEC Memorandum, dated March 4, 1993, with attachment.
- 47. NRC Letter to YAEC. dated October 14, 1988.
l Case No. 1 95 050 70 i
l 48, NRC facsimile to MYAPCo, dated January 19, 1989, with attachment.
49, YAEC Letter to NRC, dated January 23, 1989.
l 50. YAEC Licensing Corres>ondence/ Commitment Control Sheet, dated January 23, 1989, wit 1 attachment.
- 51. NRC Letter to YAEC, dated February 2, 1989 [vice 1988].
l 52. SCHULTZ /KADAK Handwritten Notes, dated February 9, 1989, with attachment, l
o
- 53. Typewritten Note, YAEC to MYAPCo, dated February 10, 1989.
- 54. YAEC Work Order Task Description Report, dated March 13, 1989.
- 55. MYAPCo draft Letters to NRC, unsigned, dated April 10, 1989 [2],
April-28, 1989, May 15, 1989, and May 19, 1989.
- 56. MYAPCo Letter to NRC, dated April 18, 1989.
- 57. NRC Letter to MYAPCo, SEARS to FRIZZLE, dated May 8, 1989, with handwritten notation.
- 58. NRC Letter to MYAPCo, SEARS to FRIZZLE, dated May 8, 1989, with handwritten notations.
- 59. MYAPCo Licensing Correspondence / Commitment Control Sheet, undated, ,
regarding SEARS' May 8,1989, letter. !
- 60. NRC RITS Report, dated June 8, 1989.
- 61. Undated, NRC Issue Document.
l 62. MYAPCo Memorandum, NICHOLS to WHITTIER, dated August 22, 1989.
- 63. Handwritten Note, NICHOLS discussion with NRC, dated September 14, 1989.
- 64. MYAPCo Memorandum, NICHOLS to WHITTIER, dated September 20, 1989.
- 65. NRC Prebriefing Document, dated October 1989. '
- 66. MYAPCo Memorandum, NICHOLS to WHITTIER, dated October 6, 1989.
- 67. MYAPCo Memorandum, dated October 12, 1989.
- 68. NRC Director's Highlights, dated October 18, 1989.
- 69. Various draft MYAPCo Letters to NRC, dated October 20, 1989, with editorial notes attached.
- 70. YAEC facsimile to MYAPCo, dated November 2, 1989, with attachments.
Case No. 1-95 050 71
- 71. YAEC Typewritten Note, dated November 7, 1989, with attachments.
- 72. Draft YAEC Memorandum, unsigned, dated December 7, 1989.
l-l 73. MYAPCo Memorandum, NICHOLS to WHITTIER, dated December 19, 1989.
l
- 74. YAEC Memorandum, METEVIA/SUNDARAM to ANDERSON /WHITTIER, dated l January 2, 1990.
- 75. YAEC Memorandum to MYAPCo dated January 4, 1990, with attachment. 1 1 1 L 76. YAEC's MY Service Request, dated January 10, 1990, with attachment.
- 77. Excerpt from YAEC's MY Service Request Log, dated 1990.
- .78. SUNDARAM Handwritten Notes, dated February 2, 1990, and undated. I i
- 79. YAEC Memorandum, dated June 1,1990, and 2 related pages,
- 80. YAEC Memoranda, dated June 6, 1990, I
- 81. YAEC Letter to NRC, dated July 19, 1990, with attachment. l
- 82. YAEC Memorandum, dated August 1, 1990, with attachment.
- 83. YAEC Memorandum, " July Highlights," dat ad August 2,1990. i
-84. YAEC Memorandum, " October Highlights." dated November 13, 1990. i
- 85. Handwritten Notes, dated January 8, 1991.
- 86. YAEC Memorandum, SLIFER to KADAK, dated February 13, 1991.
- 87. YAEC Handwritten Notes, by SUNDARAM, dated February 14, 1991. l
- 88. MY Service Request M 90 155A, dated October 23, 1990.
-89. MY Service Request M 90-155B, dated October 31, 1990.
- 90. YAEC Memorandum, GHAUS to SCOTT, dated January 25, 1991.
1
- 91. YAEC Memorandum, SCOTT to ANDERSON, dated January 28, 1991.
l 92. YAEC Memorandum, dated May 29, 1992, with attachments.
l 93. Technical Evaluation. TE No. 027 93, dated January 30, 1993.
- 94. MY 10 CFR 50.59 Determination, dated January 30, 1993, with ,
attachment.
- 95. NRC Memorandum, dated August 30, 1996. l
- 96. Technical Evaluation..TE No. 027 93, dated January 13, 1994. 4 Case No. 1-95 050 72
_- . . . _m . . . - . _ _ _ _ . _ . . . _ . . _ . _ . . _ _ _ . - _ . - . _ . . . _ . . _
l
- 97. YAEC Memorandum, dated March 13, 1991.
1 !
E 98. YAEC Memorandum, dated April 11, 1991.
l 99. MYAPCo Handwritten Notes, by NICHOLS, dated March 1990 to April l
1991.
100 YAEC Memorandum, dated June 21, 1991, with attachment. j i 101. Undated Graph, with notations.
102. Undated Graph, with notations.
103. MYAPCo Handwritten Notes, dated June 1991, 104. YAEC Handwritten Notes, dated July 18, 1991.
105. YAEC Memorandum, dated August 15, 1991, with attachment.
106. NRC Letter to MYAPCo, Transmitting License Amendment No. 124, dated November 18, 1991.
107. SWAk * 's Handwritten Notes, dated February 28, 1992.
108. SWANBON's Handwritten Notes, dated March 17, 1992.
109. SWANB N's Handwritten Notes, dated April 8, 1992.
110. SWANBON's Handwritten Notes, dated October 27, 1992.
111. BOYNTON's Handwritten Notes, dated December 1992.
112. Handwritten Notes, dated February 1993~,
113. MY SBLOCA Analysis, YAEC 1868, dated June 1, 1993.
114. YAEC Memorandum, dated July 29, 1993.
115. YAEC Memorandum, dated July 30, 1993.
116. MYAPCo CPAR, YAEC 1864 Revision 1, dated March 1994.
117. MYAPCo Letter to NRC, dated August 27, 1991, with excerpts.
118. YAEC Handwritten Notes, Summary 1990 through 1993.
119. MYAPCo Memorandum, dated August 10, 1995.
120. YAEC Letter to NRC dated December 14, 1995, with attachment.
121. NRC Memorandum, dated August 29, 199F., with attachments.
122. - MY Fuel Cycle Schedule, dated October 25, 1993.
Case No. 1-95 050 73
123. Transcript of Interview with METEVIA, dated January 18. 1996.
124. Transcript of Interview with SUNDARAM, dated January 18, 1996.
125. Transcript of Interview with HUSAIN, dated February 9, 1996, 126. Transcript of Interview with BOYNTON, dated February 15, 1996.
127. Transcript of Interview with HEBERT, dated February 15, 1996.
128. Transcript of Interview with NICHOLS, dated February 15, 1996.
129. Transcript of Interview with JORDAN, dated February 16, 1996.
130. Transcript of Interview with WHITTIER, dated February 16, 1996.
l 131. Transcript of Interview with SEARS, dated February 22, 1996. i 132. Transcript of Interview with FAIRTILE, dated March 6, 1996.
133. Transcript of Interview with H0DGES, dated March 6,1996.
134. Transcript of Interview with HOLDEN, dated March 7,1996.
135. Transcript of Interview with LEEDS, dated March 13, 1996.
136. Transcript of Interview with WESSMAN, dated March 13, 1996.
137. Interview Report of DaSILVA, dated April 2, 1996.
138. Interview Report of NELSON, dated April 9, 1996.
l 139. Transcript of Interview with HAQUE, dated April 10, 1996.
140. Transcript of Interview with FERNANDEZ, dated April 16, 1996.
141. Transcript of Interview with LOOMIS, dated April 16, 1996.
142. Interview Report of PHILLIPS, dated May 1, 1996.
143. Interview Report of ZWOLINSKI, dated May 10, 1996.
144. Transcript of Interview with GHAUS, dated May 16, 1996.
145. Interview Report of SUN, dated May 23,19x.
146. Interview Report of RUSHBROOK, dated May 24, 1996.
147. Ir.terview Report of SEARS, dated May 30, 1996. l 148. Transcript of Interview with HARVEY, dated June 3, 1996.
l 149. Transcript of Interview with SCHOR, June 3, 1996.
Case No. 1 95 050 74 1
(, l l
150. Transcript of. Interview with SLIFER, dated June 4, 1996. l 1
151. Transcript of Interview with THAYER, dated June 4,1996.
)
152. . Transcript of Interview with PAPANIC, dated June 5. 1996.
153. Transcript of Interview with McCANN, dated June 5, 1996.
154. Transcript of Interview with SCOTT, dated June 6, 1996.
155. Transcript of Interview with METEVIA, dated June 18, 1996.
156. Transcript of Interview with SWANBON, dated June 18, 1996. I i
157. Transcript of Interview with ANDERSON, dated June 19, 1996, 158. Transcript of Interview with SCHULTZ, dated June 20, 1996.
159. Transcript of Interview with SUNDARAM, dated June 26, 1996.
160. Transcript of Interview with KADAK, dated June 27, 1996.
161. Transcript of Interview with HEBERT, dated June 28, 1996. l 162. Transcript of Interview with NICHOLS, dated June 28, 1996. ;
, 163. Transcript of Interview with BOYNTON, dated July 1,1996.
164. Transcript of Interview with JORDAN, dated July 1, 1996. ;
165. Transcript of Interview with EVANS, dated July 2,1996. )
166. Transcript of Interview with JONES, dated July 2, 1996.
167. Transcript of Interview with WHITTIER, dated July 2,1996.
j 168. Transcript of Interview with FRIZZLE, dated July 3,1996.
169. Transcript of Interview with GARRITY, dated August 7. 1996.
I i
I Case No. 1-95 050 75
. . - .