ML20211K121
| ML20211K121 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 10/08/1997 |
| From: | Racquel Powell NRC OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATION (ADM) |
| To: | Capristo M AFFILIATION NOT ASSIGNED |
| References | |
| FOIA-97-355 NUDOCS 9710090143 | |
| Download: ML20211K121 (3) | |
Text
_ _ _ _ _ _._-_ -___ _-_-__-_-_ _
{
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION u ctoiastootstNvMetniSi F O IA 6 */ #-
};'p" ne,%. p\\
/
e, atSegast 1yeE g
1,j RESPONSE TO FREEDOM OF F1 ' 'N A' R "I l '^an
INFORMATION ACT (FOlA) REQUEST A"
(.eeet
@ 08 E DOCKEi NUMBE R(St (if apphcablef h.. k /
PARM.--AGENCY RECORDS RELEASED OR NOT LOCATED (See checAedbones)
No sgency records subject to the request have been located.
No additional agency records subject io the request have be in located.
Requested records are available through another public distribution program. See Commente section.
Agency records subject to the request that are identified in Append;mles) are already available for public inspection end copying at the N RC Pubhc Document Room. 2120 L Street. N.W., Washington, DC.
Agency records subject to the request that are identified in Appendin(es) are being made available for public inspection and copying et the NRC Public Document Room,2120 L Street. N.W., Washington, DC,in a folder under this FOIA number.
The nonproprietary version of the proposal (s) that you agreed to accept in a telephone conversatien with a member of my staff is now being made available l
for public inspection and copying at the N RC Pubhc Document Roum,2120 L Street, N.W., Washington. DC, in a folder under this F Ol A number.
Agency records subject to the request that are identified in Appendix (es) may be inspected and copied at the NRC Local Public Document Room identified in the Comments section.
Enclosed is information on how you may obtain access to and the charges for copying records located at the NRC Public Document Room,2120 L Street, N W.. Washington DC.
Acency records subject to the request are enclosed.
Records subject to the request have been referred to another Federal agencylies) for review and direct response to you, Fees You will be baled by the NRC for fees totahng S You will receive a refund from the NRC in the amount of $
in view of NRC's response to this request, no further action is being talten on appeal letter dated
, No.
PART 11. A-INFORMATION WITHHELD FROM P'IBLIC DISCLOSURE Cirtain information in the requested records is being withheld from public d:scicsure pursuant to the exemptions described in and for the reasons stated M Part 11,0, C, and D. Any released portions of the documents for which only part of the record is being withheld are being made available for public inspiction and copying in the NRC Public Document Roum,2120 L Street, N.W., Washington, DC in a folder under this FOIA number, COMME NTS 0
i!
c-r I c.;
Ill.lll.!!!I.l!!I.l!!!.Isil.lsllllill e
/
S k
F F RE O INFOHMATION AND PUBUCAllONS $E RVICES ty)(cc90/y3 9710090143 971008 PDR FOIA CAPRIST97-3SS PDR
l F06A NUMe:Ms, DAtt I'
RESPONSE TO FREEDOM OF 1
INFORMATION ACT (FOIA) REQUEST FOIA -p! Jgg M 08 m (CONTINUATION) l PART 118-APPLICABLE EXEMPTIONS Records subject to the request that are described in the enclosed Appendixtes).
are being withheld in their entirety or in part under the Exemption No.(s) and for the reason (s) given below pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552(b) and 10 CF R 9.17(a) of NRC regulations.
1, The withheid information is properly classited pursuant to Executive Deirer. (Enemption 1)
- 2. The withheid information relates soleiy to the anternal personnel ruise and procedures of NRC (Exemption 2)
- 3. The wethheld information is specifically enempted from public disclosure by statute indicated. (Ezempteon 31 Sections 14114$ of the Atomic Energy Act. which prohibits the disclosure of Restricted Data or Formerly Hestncied Data (42 U.S C. 2161-2165).
Section 147 of the Atomic Energy Act which prohibits the disriosure of Unclass.fied Safeguards information (42 U.S.C. 2167).
- ' "' """'.'d '"".*". *..'." "' "* .* "***'* *' "' '**"* " ""* '*" '"*' 6"' """"' '*' '"' '"un t s ) in$ca t ad ( E umpt ion 4 )
The information is considered to be confidential busmess tpropnetaryl mformation 1he mformation es onsidered to be propretary mformation pursuant to 10 CFR 2 790tdi(1)
The mformation was suta atted and received m confidence pursuant to 10 CFR 2 790idH2s 5 bhe withheld mformation consists of mieregency or mtraagency records that are not avassabie through discovery dunng litigation (Exemption 51. Applicable Prevaiego Dehborative Process. Disclosure o' predecisional mformation would tend to inhetist the open and frank enchange of iceas essential to the deliberative process Where records see withrnir* m their entirety. the f acts are mentricabiy etertweed with the psedecisional intormation There aiso are rio reasonably seJregab6e lectual portions tocause the release of the f acts would permit an odirect movery mto the predecisionai process of the agency Attorney work produe;l privilege (Documents prepared by an attorney m cuntemplateon of litigation.
Attornav-client prtsilege. (Contwential communicatens twtween an attorney and his'her chant.)
- 6. The withheld mformanon is exempted from pubhc disuosu e because its disclosure wou<d resuit m a ciearly unwarranted evasion at personal pr vacy. (Ememption 61 r
7 The withhe6d mformaten consists of records compiled for law enforcement purposes and is bemg withheld for the reasontal indicated (Exernption 7)
Disclosure could reasonab.y be expected to mterfere with an enforcement proceeding because it coukt reveal the scope, direction. and focus of
- enforsement efforts, and thus could possibly allow recipients to take acten to shield potential wrongttoms or a violation of NRC requirementa Disclosure would constitute an unwarranted evenson of personal pnvecy. (Exee tion 7tCi?
The mformation consists of nemes of individuais and other informaison the disciosure of which could reasonapa, De espected to reveal atentities of conhdentias sources. (Exampt on 7 (Dil OTHER l
PART ll. C-DENYING OFFICIALS F
- Pursuant to 10 CFR 9 ?5ltd and or 9 25tci of the U S. Nacier Reguistary Commwan regulabons. :t has beer :letermined the the mformation a thheld is exempt from pro-duction or disciosure and that its production or d4sciosare is contraev to tne pubLc interes* The persons responswa for the deniai are those othcesis ident fied beiow as denying offiC@s and the D. recta. Drs.on of Freedom of informar<on and Pubhcat ons Seri ces, Ofbcv o' Adm+n-straoon, for any den ais that may be appeated to the E necudve D. rector for Operations (EDOL I
TITLE > OFFICE RECORDS DENIED l
APPELL ATE OFFICIAL DENYING OFFICIAL I TDO ISECHETARY[
IG 2
AV i xL i
' L Cw 9
& &,K xi-f/>%A dY/gY%M[s%'%L-A
^
/
i j
i 1
l l
1 I
i i
PART 11. D-APPEAL RIGHTS r
The d2nial ey eacn cenying off cial identif:ed m Part I!.C may be apoesied to tne Appenate Off.ciat identefri the*e Any such spoeal mutt be made m writmg witmin 30 days o receipt i
of this response. Appeats must be addressed. as appropriate, to the E xecutive Director for Operations. a tne Secretary o+ the Commiss<on. or to the inspector Genera ( U.S. Nuciea-iP.egulatory Commission.Vrathmgton. DC 20555. and should ciaarty state on tne enveope and in the letter that it is an " Appeal from an imt at FOtA Decision."
i L
NRC FORM 464 (Part 2)(191)
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
Re: FOIA 97 355 APPENDIX B RECORDS BEING W11HHELD IN PART t
NfL -
DAIE DESCRIPTIONHPAGE COUNT)/ EXEMPTIONS 1.
05/30/97 Report of Investigation, Maine Yankee Atomic Power Station:
Incomplete and inaccurate Information Willfully Provided to the NRC Regarding the Emergency Feedwater System, Case No.1-96-040 (26 pages) EX. 7C
SEP-15-97 MON 11:34 AM WORT.ER CONCERHS FAX N0. 2078B24988 P.01 Aldo
' to 4
s' September 15,1997 Mr.RusseilPowell W6 ChiefFOIA/LPDR Ones k 97-868 -
US NuclearRegulatory Commission De w..
1-/% 4 7 Mailstop T6D8 m 00-
_ be/
Washington, DC 20555-0001 mw Mr. Powell:
Under the auspices of the Freedo.S ofInformation Act, I am requ sting copies of two recently completed NRC Office ofInvestigation reports. The report case numbers are 1-96-025, and 1-96-040. These reports should contain your findings surrounding two investigations at the Maine Yankee Atomic Power Station.
Please contact me as soon as possible to confinn this request, and to infctm me of the time required to process this request. If possible, please ship the reports via overnight delivery service.
Expenses surrounding the processing of this request may be billed to myN I may be reached at (207) 882-4530 during normal working hours. My 24 hour2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> pager number is 7
(207) 823-1336.
Thank you in advance for your prompt attention to this request.
Sincerely, Aldo Caprinto 00S 1
'S qggg*;tM{kx4pg$enM:nw
~<
{,
m
' * {.'{f gy ha
' kB A40
['., *
- d.
e 9
.i
~
.N s
er %
YQ JNuclear Regulatory,Eosumission.
j!$%
/: :;
g :,-
. 7 e ' t.
m.'sw-
.t.,e'., V 4
. - +..
,.t
,k a a
+
'EU er Y
' ' ' ~
INE2(ANKEE
_. _ _ _MI.-
.a sesnom. mM
- m. -s s we. m-
-w WER" 7 OP e
' ' " #1d' #L?
pt..y
,Q T
- t Y%#'l r.,
3 I
.=
,. NCOMPLt.it4NDMNAbCURATE NFDRMATION %@
,, s
^
'ILLTULLi$ROVIDE6 $0%HEYNRC$EG$DINGMg@
EEMERGENCY EDW.TEREYJ
~
ash
@@sQ$fst
~
y{ld'; &? *
~
r.1 7
=
4 ffice
. gatio.ns' 9
s
- h 2
. m ioonco W 6ff.
c.
..s,
4 f, '
Title:
MAINE YANKEE AT0 HIC POWER STATION:
INCOMPLETE AND INACCURATE INFORMATION WILLFULLY PROVIDED TO 1}iE NRC REGARDING THE EMERGENCY FEEDWATER SYSTEM Licensee:
Case No.:
1 96 040 '
I Maine Yankee Atomic Power Company Report Date: May 30, 1997 329 Bath Road Brunswick, Maine 04011 Control Offica: OI:RI Docket No.: 50 309 Status: CLOSED Reported by:
Rev ewed and Approved by:
4!!kb b
<1 Dennis Boal, Special Agent Barry RJ Letts, Director Office of Investigations Office of Investigations Field Office,- Region IV Field Office, Region 1 Particioatina Personnel
^
Ernest P. Wilson, Senior Special Agent Office of Investigations Field Office, Region I Infocutian in this secord w33 en:eg 50 30 Cold]3CS With th9,Cle0<,l0010' IdnilDat40li A1 exemainns.._2C TOW f42c.Jff_
NOT I
PLACE N IC is OF OF INVE I OUl il N C TY WVI 0FF I 0F I REPO (T. UI IZED DIS ____ IRE I AD INI TIVE ON CRIMINAL ION.
f k
l
l SYNOPSIS This investigation was initiated on October 24, 1996, by the Nucleas Regulatory Commission (NRC), Office of Investigations (01), Region I (RI), to determine whether incomplete and/or inaccurate information was willfully provided by the Maine Yankee Atomic Power Company (NYAPCo) during an NRC Enforcement Conference on October 14, 1994, regarding the Emergency Feedwater System (EFW) at the Maine Yankee Atomic Power Station (NY).
Based on the evidence developed during this investigation, 01 did not substantiate that NYAPCo officials willfully provided incomplete or inaccurate information regarding the EFW to the NRC during an October 14, 1994, enforcement conference.
4 NOT LIC D L
WI FIELD OFFICE DI 0FFI
. GA
, REG I
CaseNo.19604!
1
4 THIS PAGE LEFT BLANK I WENTIONALLY t
F C
SC WITdT d[
IE Ii
, OFF I
/E!
JEjM I Case No. 1 96 040 2
o TABLE OF CONTENTS EA9ft SYNOPSIS.....................'............ 1 5
LIST OF INTERVIEWEES 7
DETAILS OF INVESTIGATION 7
Applicable Regulations 7
Pur)ose of Investigation 7
Bac(ground Interviews of Alleger........................ 8 l
Coordination with NRC Staff...,,................ 9 l
Allegation:
Incom)lete and Inaccurate Information was Willfully Provided to the RC Regarding the Emergency Feedwater System at Maine Yankee 10 l
Evidence / Documents 10 j
Evidence / Testimony.....................12
~
Agent's Analysis
.,,...................20 Conclusion
.........,,.............21 LIST OF EXHIBITS............................23 h
I fvu 0F I PICf 0F NOT IC F
RE I
OFF Case No. 1 96 040 3
_o
4 l
THIS PAGE LEFT BLANK IKTENTIONALLY 4
'I LD I
RE I
ION I 4
Case No. 1 96- 0 e
i l
LIST OF INTERVIEWEES d
j EXHIBIT BRAND, Ethan. Suwrvisor, Nuclear Safety Engineering Group (NSE 3), NYAPCo........................
17 i
FROTHINGHAM, John. Manager, QuaHty Programs Department 26 & 27 (QPD), NYAPCo.........................
FRIZZLE, Charles, President and Chief Executive Officer, MYAPCo.....
20 i
. FULLER, Edward, President, Associated Projects Analysis.........
21 LEITCH, Graham, Vice President, Operations, MYAPCo...........
28 SMITH, Steven, Managec, Operations Department, MYAPCo..........
23 l
....M 7 G WHITTIER, George, Vice President, Engineering, NYAPCo. :........
22 VEILLEUX, Michael, Manager, Maintenance Department, MYAPCo.......
25 YER0KUN, Jimi, Senior Resident Inspector at MY, RRC...........
19 NOT PLEL C SC AP OF IELD CE RE CE I
GA ONS, RF II I
Case No. 1 96 040 5
\\
l i
b d
4 4
1 4
1HIS PAGE LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY 5
E 1
.i 4
Z OR C D _J K
A 1
Fi IRE
, OFFI I
Case No. 1-96 040 6
~
DETAILS OF INVESTIGATION ADolicable Reaulations 10 CFR 50.5: Deliberate misconduct (1994 Edition).
10 CFR 50.9: Completeness and accuracy of information (1994 Edition).
Puroose of Investiaation This investigation was initiated on October 24, 1996, by the Nuclear Regulatory Comission (NRC), Office of Investigations (01), Region I (RJ), to
' determine whether incomplete and/or inaccurate information was willfully provided to the NRC during an Enforcement Conference (EC) on October 14, 1994, by the Maine Yankee Atomic Power Company (NYAPCo), regarding the Emergency Feedwater Systen (EFW) at the Maine Yankee Atomic Power Station (NY)
(Exhibit 1).
Backaround On August 4,1994, while the NY reactor was in a cold shutdown condition the 31 ant operators determined that an EFW isolation valve for the il Steam Generator was leaking. It was detenmined that under accident conditions which require isolation of EFW, the, isolation valve leakage could exceed Safety 1
Analysis assum)tions and the NRC was informed on September 1,1994 (Exhibit 7).
4Y initiated an engineering root cause evaluation that was completed ust 8,1994 (Exhibit 6), and subsequently initiated a higher lev P
t a se Eval e
RE 1
n October 6. 1994 S 7C The NRC identified the EFW isolation valve leakage issue in NRC Inspection 50 309/94 15, dated So,.tember 20,1994 (Exhibit 8), and held an enforcement conference (EC) on October 14, 1994, and issued a Notice of Violation (NOV) on October 20, 1994 (Exhibit 9). Additional activities were conducted by the licensee, to include reviews by the Nuclear Safety Audit and Review Committee (NSARC) and the Plant Operations Review Committee (PORC) (Exhibit 15).
7c I
IR Case No.
96 040 7
-;. s [.%.'; f. % Q [ } } g.; e
.]{
' i.. ;,_, *..p c,.
.,o g
[4((. '.,.$[,ah,,h..,g[4
.- o 3,' [y ;[. 3y,j %[' #if'.QW ;g q:p 1D,IffVieWS0 4
..,"',. :v ;;n, *. L - *',I},
} N' q~'h y
,$ $ I
[+
[h '.
g/..
'.. '.,, *....v,.
q. ". ', * ' *. ?* ','. Q.1:
,.c.
.... i
.".;: :s.*.. '. +
~a i
,1.**!**
.:.'...y)::m.y.
A**
- .'.N..
a
-, o r
.m. ;g-,
J.,,.,.,.. '... 1, /,.3W., n.. y.. _.
.v V.','
,u.;
,'% l.
gt y.;.
s ".
.,.r.-
p~.9..
'... s..n;W
". c / ' f,1,
..e y'. i,',13.:v
,6
+.. b r.
-d..;....-
s 9 ~..f y......,..
u r, s y,.. '-.?.
n.-
c.<
- y...
+- -
^
.w,,
s.
.c g' y,: - s '.. i g;...'. '
' ' ' ;, i,1,.
- g.
1- '
,D
.J...
.b e':
.n.
v,.
.~.u,-
~
t.' g' s e
. _.',;.y..y: ' R
,.e'.
y * ~-
e : ', ;, ' - [ *....':., :..
'.:,f,_..
,...,.^
~..' - ;*'
r.. -
.s
.. ' 4.'. ' l lc - _..'..:
.q f.
/
)._ Wy i :.
J
.s.. s,.. n.,o. 'a t :a >,..,,
--'.i ' f ic,, '), ' b * [.% ; *
'.o... ;q-. -
- s. s
. '.,..' i
.2...'a^
44..'.. ', '
..,c.'. :
.s. g..
0.
... a.,A'...4
+.. - a 4'
.y
- - A
m'
.a' s. 4.d..
.s.
i
.<..-'s
,',...<g.'
-., s. -
~... +.
c *..
,.' y<
.,,,*' 1.. - i
- c.,'fc,* -
~....
',? s
,~.'..'..'..,tt..'.- 4,,.'v'.'.yg..'.3"..
s.
.,,.,/..'
g
..e.t. j., 'g a
J.
.'t 1,
4.
.....e-t it
- ..ty.,..,.
-gi*1
- 3. ;....,
i t,
n-
,,-.Q
.ie>-
4,'.A......I. :
y,
- <&C..
- ,J.-
?. $ ., 7 /. / ' '., 4 4 ?, %,.,, y(,;.,..', y", -'
,.7
- 4 * ;,.
- u. ' k,...
3,., ;, /. '.,,
g.
,J el '. W,.. ' : ;
l 9.',,1
.,,.'.',,j'. q ',)
. O,.* ;; *.
- 4
- f..'l-l '. -f
.f.
f
- h' hi. d.
i, f.l.,- 5 ,[I k... f, - a v. .: I m.
- a. }. p. ',
a ,..e ,, e e ,z...','s '. '. '
- {.,,
A e.4 r( ..,.V., g >c,,g7.-.. 2s 6 .. i..t; ': ), . 9,T, - %...,'. f.. g)L + q., ; fe* ' :, %g, ':,' - 'M, e' pf,.4.:..,%.,.i: s -;(.. f,.lt; y :..,,c .#., p: ;..,. '. ', < t - '- e a.('. t.
- '4 q,,.
..~s i a. 3*;y.4 y '...L..D;:p;l:%)e % ) p,Q ;.. y V (4_:$.'Q:<.Jk) 4. h, j gs.yw.. s., t ;;. lm.,1o,.. ;, l v.,, g gs
- y A. -
.. g;.,, tv. t,.,.. g
- .., i
- y r y). ;y ! }.,,,: ',', W,,. k. &,y,,..
t . ;.. %.. <,. c. c y w, e...,A, :... .4..y. ,.s., .y.; m.... ; n.. x. -. ,, _...r.: g.., r,_. w ...'s,..,.-,..,1.- ,r
- 3. s.... g,.,.,.., p.. ;.18,,:.,
- f,
,,1 - g.,,,,.#'. , ; 3.y 3, ge .f.,.+ .. ;.-.c.,, {. ei.'.. c,. e. ;. t g. - e., i .c / J .t..- .,g.
- 3. e
- y.,
. ' e #.. y/; N.), gg ,7..,..,.g p, '" { '.f,yp V, 3 p,.. -- .....i,e.j, .o .o. e,, g eo ., t '.'.,a ..f.? *,q/ I, '., * ', i'+ ' ( ;.?. %,. '[ ? $,,. 'j...,.. X ; ' .,Y., Q..,',. 5,'., ' \\ g * '\\w. J' ',. J' . s
- . '..,..
- , ;. t ;.s,
[.j,..q ', G l ;".. y, G. c,'.. e. t .4 y.
- l.,'.~.L k
,8, ', 'd ', e ,..'s. _,t.
- s :,
. [ ;. m. ; '_ 'j..G .Y . - ',... - \\, - ;-..: .n 2 . y. 9 , p s.r L ; ~,.:V'.'..- .9.,....h.'.',q. s a-b .., r, ': :G,...,... " :, s:..-.. ....,w s. !.-.. J'. :. q \\. c...go.;, p,. a. .v+,. .': A. ..f. '. t,.,- '..~.,:;..,~V L-a. ' 4 '. 4' x ...-. l., A 't.-.'n.. c. ,,i+...z. .. i e, ..,..,'.p,...u..
- p D
',, ',...I.e.,,'.,. s - ', " ( 'l
- '3
- .. (e. 4,..*.
,...)*.,.,., .t*.,., .s-i s a.. -'.*'i,. 8... '. "....s.. '.,[? [ 4.,. ' 3 3 '. '. " -'.#,'
- "'.a.,
A:.... .t.. g. f .i ,O . *V,. 'd[',',t..,,,t.- A.e. -[' 4 - ' t f t'.,0' f < '. {, * '.' $s .....,,p,c,---c...., t. g v.,t ..,O':., - _. - .e q.y.. o'. ~t-
- -. e':.
=A .1.,c,. ;;. .x.'....,* 4,.- .q .r.. p, 3 4. ,t.. 3n.' n..,,w... N j l. ',o. %
- w. t', -
W .. g :,,. .'..':. v' -l. ' s'q.. 's, . i. ;y. .e..'..,e.: i 6: s '. ' 'c -....%. y*!. . a s.s.., e.g.,... s.
- 1.. O w.:, ~ p.k:y.,..-.., ;,..J
- .. n..:.
4.. p n,.,o..>.<.. -..,...:. s., c 4,' n.a.. :,.. :, ;
- c...-:m,....,..,
6 .e,p,....- . 6 .%,. ;.,..,v.... <- : -ii 1 "..g ". :. g. .. a p *.. J.,,,.,,3.. ,1...., ..c 3.. ,s, , '..,g.,,.,,V.,.... .. c.;.i.4 g,r " <.,.,j, s . 'r.,.' 3a .1 ~ m ',..,..s,
- j.,8. A ',
gn. -.i . c ,-.....n. j,. i t' .I* b^ '?' w.... .'. ~..
- [z*.'.,'.~.,,,. '; *.. ?..',(,y -*..,, - '_"h'. ~ _ ':.' a ' y 4,.
,- ::: a .w ,,. J, [ *, ['..',,, .... '.,. ', =...i.*.i,3 .,.J'..' '. .I .((.s J [., ',, ' lp # .. '. ;;': b y*.[,.. 4,,.. . ? ,m" * '.i,.*.,.J, ', *,U, t ~' . s.;: s.,. e,y., ~, ,,y 's'..= 7.h 2.*- . p .,e F A-.' /,=*.-; g,f.,. r,..,.,,,g :,.,,'s. ..'*f,(.k',',.,,.;'.,J; ;r'- .,.t ','...g.. 3 ; g..g '., gt e,, a': . 4, ' - l ',., - ( ;#% eJ f.;. - ',. ' J, g,....f,g. ' -,- a ' '. ' '.:..,. a..y*
- , **... v.
,).... ',*, / -.E.*.,. t ,,g'. a s E -.,;e hg. 'l.' '. '...., m, %[_',',[',..? ,ep. .i .-.'^'r,; ' y..' y ?;' e '.., '. '.l*. . l, . ( ;..,, .e r .# ; 4.Q,,.. .,,gf.i_ 't,* ff'., g 46 .*?. ,.. '.,,,f g' ,.N' -6 r, ? -,.;., j ' -a,,..
- %f, '.
l,* ,,.,,. -e......,;,,4...'a r
- j i
- , Q
,.'.,'g;- {*, [ w. a-.;
- , a e a,...s,, '. '.. '.*,
' ', ' * ^. ,9, 4 ? .}*, , _ g 6 'f
- 3....,.
- P.
l 4, g,e ,.., P %y ', g, .qg . 'c f., '. !. g % '.". '.. '.,'l2 e .'..{"/,.' . [ [i,; " -, I {,j -.- *, ;, i,,,- j;' 3:, A,,, -. -. 7.. ','. t ,,p., b .i. s-. ..'./...' [. -f .... .f {,, j N,. [;'. **. ,'=, "f',',',='e
- ,*i, g.y y,
'**% ; a, f C.f' [, ' ( ; ' .','.",','qt ( *. .,i. I '.'.(.il.',- . f _, ' 'y, N,
- I
,.,.',g**c 6-- f' .,t .r., ..g ,a.,,,,.,.., ..<,..,.. as.. v. ...[.. [ [,. ;,,..,' ' ',, * * -. ".,7 f. Y. '4.,., ,e -.;..- ..j 3.j. s.;#. '.,i ). i.... t. f i 6 I..,. s 'f,, ...'j.e*.... [j. p *. ; O,,.'.,p', J. s
- .7..,..'. s:, M
, [ '.8 r,.;.", .y.... _. :'.-( .,c. '. ?,' 6 h,,. t 'g,...,. k.,.'n'*..m. :.'. 9 '.;.', ,'.g,.i,',.,,, '. = -e n.g ' * ? C'.',.]q~.("..,,,..,.,*.f ,-..i.-- '.V,i, . 4e., .c n... '.,,,s ,,l . '.e m:4:e.,,',,,[..-14.,' i e a ; . 3 ,z. 4 1.,: ,,g.a 3 a.. .. w.f.
- a. 3
.a s y.1y: e....,...
- 3'
.x-e g 3
- . y ;;;
- :. v v. s.:.; y..,,. ; ; ; ; f ; +..c...,i.;,. ( 4
.;e, _ g., n,..+,.. c... yT. 1 .v.,..m...,. p p : p ?. - .. y -. .g.. l * -, ,+., ' '. f
- i.j.*
.g. .g- ,f *s- } ',.;.'., { ' :...'. p sf,,.,,. (. ,,. "; c. g.,.3 , Q,,'.g l.* /,. . ] *. >.. '..,..'.,,,;.h ; '.n,,.'.,., l ' 3 i.9 g. .,i,. .., +,
- },..
,,. g ,r.*. ,g. 3,, .'6. lW <l. -., y 4, j ; ,4 ,j,
- 9. -,., ;.,. l-t p',.,.
.., j ;, ' e.. - ).. a f,. ", + J, .. vl ,t g e-4 4... i,.... & '., ?c.; l:, .~
- b. :l, _. W l ?',S Q.'?.,';*.
- .. f
- g,..' ',_ i ^.... :. n..
, b. '.,'. '. ',.',' L.h. A, ' 1 '...:, is .'-V. i,h : -, gs s. . n ...,.) .s ':? * -1 .?, g .; -., ; ;,' c 4...,.. ; c 4 5 .,m
- q... :
.1,, f. G., ,. '(i . A n ':;.,.,. _ '. ; .,.*...:.,,.,.z.,
- f.-
-. ? '.,..'. : :..y... V,O . ;... ;p_;..'t,;','q..,.,',..;.,.._.G...;.,.... l l,..,... - ,.f.,',.. g,
- [.
... s ':[s,: i ' f..e a-;: ..4 3.'...,- -3. q f: .-c w '. %. :t..,..,,,.
- :-.l..,.,,,,......* ',-
-. : g 't b,. '.'.i, .,0 ',.t e s,-- p g'3.x .j
- t. %,
- ..,,.j.
g. ..s'. .5 .F,..*...,, ',, ',..,.. '. g( '.n,f. 'e jf,. ij. : = ',.; ',, .,P +g.,'-,.,s /*3 . f, .+s-s'-. .r'c g .(,. t: 0.,,- s
- g ec.t.-:....,..'
n. y - -..- f . u? -'y. 4-3.,:. -+ ,5,, 1..,.a. . :1 v....l* ;,...'.:?.g' % ,4 .. - it g . '.. _, - -.i. % - .e- ' ;. *- i r
- t ~.
s. f '.,' 2. . t
- ' O. o.
- N ' '. r...~ N i - - -. ry
- . ?
i s ... [.-;[' ' {.,, ' '. [. . h, \\/.,d. ,J; %
- ,el'-
.,. ',... */, :.[j' .' d[; -( I , ";*,,,... g.~*,.,f;.y., t k :.n: M}.' ' ' ;',,, 4.. '?u..m., t., L,, y. + :3..,;\\ : m.,.; ?[,..,, f..'.
- ,x
~;.. y 3. c c.. : R..: ; p p? '2 [ ; f,. ' :. ~:.y w. *K.: :. -l - @ M,,:3.i t. j l' : y' > m;: ; W 7- }.. ' A(? ? },,. A ',.['...,.. v.] *;,.? g, 4. 1,
- ' ' =
,'.y, -.,.., ; g y/;- ]).,,h* g g, c.V.,:, '. Q s. (? '
- ..f*]}j g,1c -
.. :, f. - i.. s 6 ?v '.f,.:,",.. p - .; 1,, c,, ,7
- . ;' - 'M
&.'_. :a " ; '. .g,W.,7 Af Q p,, T ',p. ]j. 9.f 'j n.. '**.'. 6 .v ;: ': 'a* a: ;.- ' .' :*f g n-
- '. ;..- ?.i, s
t y.., 1. :E,,. '., j,', Q' 'f,. 'M' ;y s. e'.
- "i
, > e'(. . - 4, . f,,.y,,,,, :1,g -v P,. 't... ~.. '. 1- -, '. t 'g.. ' . l.,. f /. X' 1 y -
- ?.. s ; V. s l 1 ' i. ' '.;. ' ~. _ ' *
- l ;s'.. J ' _.7. '. 9 S.
.g,. ... !,.. - l 2J1N ,1 . ' y - jo '.'
- L.... ' ( :.,. -."..p.,/.w.,.. > &l ' ' } ;>; '.f
.J . ;6 ;f ...;.;*=,,..,.c..5'.,.;- .s. ; - r i . N ,t. c h,',', f b,e s '. e ;T,7 t >.:f -;i: i:.c.').* -'\\ R: ' l lf T.: h. y ?...' : '. !" ~- p L, -a n'--
- _ t;
, > ;, '(Y..., :l - m s. (..y' c y.. : - v.s f,,*.. r ',,...L 'yy yq,:.,\\_.n,. f. :.y _ +.~...;. - )
- s;,..
'* - ) (
- t j fC',',< f. ',.,...
W .y ' '. ;. e.,, .s . y,'..,...l.,. !. M ,, n, s. .,,,,3.'.,..*.'...'.*.,.,.'..,,1$,. ,._ w; 7., 6.,.1, 's....q JJ ; -g ; f,, ,s., m., t ',.7.,. 'a. }, 4 r.. a.' f,,' c y g.,., O. I g. 2 1, *.. e. p, '.i,{ '.. ,f. s-U .,.(..- l T 4-l ,g,. m m,.* =, ~ -
- ,;: s, ' ~ --.s q : s'.....s'.
..+ ) 'Y %, 4, '. % ,e,' m. *,' 'f'4 ', .... v. %.,..:. ;, Q. '.' c.. 'f ', - (i,, ;.....4'.. 'e) y* f ~. ;.,..' ?..',- P '..',' *. j ', [,". y. . +. ' . ~ gyi.g,. - ... f ~', T 4-e
- .ss;
.s.* ; 4 ...f,.C'.'.. 5 ~,,.. N..w, a. ;, !,., m*. (,,.....,. ',,.,, u A ','. c% ",. i. w, r.s....- ,?g G..N,.,.7;&,.. q.. m.g . n 7.d. f. sH.g..........f, p, W.,..,,..W3.3.. 9. :,gp.W:.$.M. : e.W!.<;c,. ic. - >..s. .:.. r.... c.. :.. x. n.. .j +. .c n o . ~. ~ . n.a.....v.,. :_.,.. 4 .,...;..::, yt.; w.,, v:.u. ; :. y.,.. .m.3.. t . w.,.,, v. e ~.. ';R.,. p 1, ..,c,3 ,.i n.- ( e
- ;
- ... m 3.q,W, ;_ 'd.;. p..\\. s.
.n _.it.,.;..,;. b. : :. _, %, t f. :;. '.'.,'.,K. ...,..,.: ' s.,o ] i.' Y.,' '[.., g.. '. n : 0 '. s a.- .+ -.. ',.. 6' e v W,.1 :,.vg;u,. a; y. ; F g,M i,K.Q. (.a.,;3 b t v..$ ..; s 4 .y.m m u,m.a m.v, A. v.-le;. m. e.-a< - v - J_ -L 4 r 'a&.g.. bs y.3h, 5 -..w m-3... ~ .s e.c m: %. v.. m.a e x. w w:..s. p a. e, x. y.;..: m,,::tsy; m ;y s k. e. w a. m s p p w n m & 6 i s . ec vw y m :gn we4 x e x, e.v ..:g.a s :w. p y,. p. y h )- ,,.w:m, as.,,+. s_ ww, a...w. ,n v+ o .t i AL OF e s, R e *~ l . ELD (. E DIN I Case No. 1 96 040 8 o _ mL ~ - m.m.am.- -um m;a
t e s ~ y N -- D l 7x a W J i -j i Coordination with NRC Staff On Nevember 3, 1996, NRC:01 f rded co i st the drafts .fini P 7c In a November 7,1996, telephone conference, Jimi YER0KUN, Senior C9sident observed Inspector at HY, NRC, advised 01:RI and the Region I g e orial variations in the documents n I staff but did not identify any material o conduct an inspection at MY regarding the materials provided to I FIE Case No. 1 96 040 9
01:RI and to rovide a written sumary analysis relative lo the focus of this 01:RI investi ation. On December 12,1996, YER0KUN, concluded his review of the EFW docum' nts that e hadbeenprovidedby01:RI(3versionsoftheMYPRCEfl90,datedOctober6, 1994 August 1 and 2,1994 [vice 1996); and 4 versions of the NY EFS Event Investigation Reprt (EIR),1 dated Se)tember 16, 1994, and 3 dated September 20,1994), and said he saw t1e results of editing in the documents, but did not see evidence that information was hidden from the NRC, YER0KUN said he did not identify any differences that would have caused the NRC's decision following the EC to be different. YEROKUN advised that, in general, inadecuacies were highlighted in engineering and in the maintenance process. YER0KlN added that the ordering of the causes did not change NRC . considerations and de emphasizing engineering problems was not, in itself, a ' problem. YER0KUN opined that the key consideration for the NRC, was that the issue did not rise to a safety si ficant determination, as demonstrated by the NY safety analysis (Exhibit 1 ) On December 1996, the RI staff provided an analysis of the information 7C gl and determined that, in the materials reviewed, NY did not w t11old information from the NRC (Exhibit 4). On January 31,1997: YER0KUN provided an analysis of additional information provided by 01:RI and determined, again, in the materials reviewed, that MY did not withhold information from the NRC (Exhibit 14). A11ecation: Incomplete and Inliccurate Information was Willfully Provided to j the NRC Regarding the Emergency Feedwater System at Maine Yankee Evidence / Documents MY Procedure. No. 20 100 1. Rev. 15 (Exhibit 5). This procedure provides guidance for a Plant Root Cause Evaluation Report, and establishes review responsibility by the NSEG, the Plant Manager, the PORC, each responsible department manager, and the Vice President for Operations. In addition, this procedure required the tracking of the repo_rt's recommendations in the Maine Yankee Task Tracking System (mms). Enaineerina Root Cause. dated Auoust 8.1994 (Exhibit 6) This document titled. *EFW A 338/EFW A 340 Seat Leakage," was the initial review of the August 4,1994 EFW valve leakage event and was conducted by Lyndon BARR0N, Performance Engineer, Plant Engineering Department MY, BARR0N concluded that the maintenance procedure did not provide sufficient details regarding seat / disc and actuator orientation. ~ MY letter to the NRC dated Seotember 1. 1994 (Exhibit 7) This letter transmitted the Licensee Event Report (LER) No. 94 016 to the NRC, which identified $he August 4,1994, EFW isolation valve leakage event. The LER reported that the reactor was in a cold shutdown condition and plant F I RE [ I Case No. 1 96 040 10
operators determined that an EFW isolation valve for #1 Steam Generator was leaking #2 and #3 Steam Generators.Further investistion identified similar leakage i to the It was determined that, under accident conditions, which require isolation of EFW, the isolation valve leakage could exceed Safety Analysis assumptions. 'NRC Letter to HY. dated September 22. 1994 (Exhibit 8) This letter rewrts the NRC inspection findings [IR No. 50 309/94 15] that incorporated tle August 4, 1994. EFW 1eakage event. This NRC inspection identified the failure of the NY engineering organization to determine leakage criteria for the EFW isolation valves, and to translate such into appropriate testing requirements, as an apparent violation. NRC NOV Letter to MY. dated October 20. 1994 (Exhibit 9) This letter transmits the NOV to MY and summerizes the EC results. Also attached were copies of overhead slides that HYAPCo had provided at the October 14, 1994, EC. MY _etter Transmittino a Revised LER to NRC. dated October 28. 1994 (Ex11 bit 1Q1-This document revised the safety significance of the August 4,1994 EFW event downward, citing recently completed analyses that showed plant safety was not significantly compromised by tly August 4,19M EFW event. NRC Letter to HY. dated December 5. 1994 (Exhibit 11)- This letter acknowledged the MY reply to the NOV. It confirmed receipt of the HY responso that explained corrective and preventive actions were initiated regarding post maintenance testing of EFW isolation valves. I MY Nuclear Oversicht Committee (NOC) Reoorts (Exhibit 13) The NY NOC' submitted reports for August 13, 1994, January 16, 1995, June 7, 1995, and August 15, 1995, to the Chairman of the Board, NYAPCo. Also included with the documents were NOC working notes for the period February 7, 1995, through Febrenry 10, 1995. These reports, in part, compiled by Edward D. FULLER, President, Associated Projects Analysis, and a member of the NOC, identified areas of concern by the Board at MYAPCo. In the reports there are references to the Au9pst 4, 19M, EFW event. These documents were provided to the staff for review. E C I Case No. 1 9 40 11
NRC Memorandum. dated January 31. 1997 (Exhibit _11). This memorandum is from the stafi' to 01 and related that a staff review of the additional HY documents (Exhibit 13), provided by 01, determined'that no additional safety or technical concerns were presented therein, 'NSARC Heetina Reoort. dated October 21. 1994 (Exhibit 15) These documents detail a special meeting to review PRCE #190, and identified that PRCE #190 did not include s)ecific root cause de ons and, 7 C_ therefore, required revision. T1e documents reflect revisions and the subsequent review and approval of PRCE #190 by t Manaoement Review Board Reoort. dated May 2.1995 (Exhibit 16) This report titled, " Corrective Actions Associated with Multiple Events Involving Incorrect Assembly of Eccentric Butterfly Valvas," was completed by the following individuals: John FROTHINGHAM, Manager, Quality Programs, Russ PROUTY Assistant to the Vice President. 0)erations, Mike EVRINGHAM. Operations Training Section Head, and STOWERS (30ard Consultant). The report summarized that on March 15, 1995, a larger, but similar valve, was found to have the same problem as identified in the August 4,1994, EFW valve leakage event. MY recognized the " serious nature" of the problem, including the apparent failure of corrective action, and initiated this Management Review Board action. The Boarc identified toyr issues deserving management l attention. This report concluced, in part, that certain management )ractices required further review. Items identified were frilure to complete RC commitments in a timely manner, and failure to input PRCE recoseendations into prevent future similar problems, processes that NY should hav6 enacted towith a trend "MYTTS.
- This report discussed l
problem but also to review the issue to look for additional generic and safety implications. The report identified programmatic problems, but did not detect any wrongdoing issues. Evidence / Testimony Interview of BRAND (Exhibit 17) Interviewed on December 10, 1996. BRAND rv 1i t the PRCEs 7CI allow for numerous rewiites of the draft PRCE BRAND said that NSEG procedu reports. He recalled that provided a draft PRCE #190 report to one of the NY ma I] whose se ion was reviewed. BRAND said the manager may have ask to reposition a porticn of the report about his (the manager's) sec ion to a less noticeable place in the PRCE aid /c he d h a re st i PLBL IW _ _. OF E ICE IRE CE Case No. 1 96 040 12
.......,,q ti' BRAND said he reviewed PRCE #190 and he was not aware of any HY' attempts to hide any information from the NRC in PRCE #190. He opined that all factors were completely and accurately reflected therein, including the resolution of ~ he EFW valve leakage issue. t ' te BRAND said that on1 senior level r assoc Interview of FRIZZLE (Exhibit 20) Interviewed on February 3, 1997. FRIZZLE, President and Chief Executive Officer, NYAPCo, said he attended the pre EC meetings that were routine 6presaratorymeeti s at HY (Exhibit 19 149), FRIZZLE at ECs i all limited to mana i '7c l l FR ZZLE added that he did not see con ra on co as a s casual factor in the August 4,*1994 E e t (Exhibit 19, p. 55). FRIZZLE also did not recall any discussio that there was a problem with the openness or "1evel of candor" a le pre EC meetings (Exhibit 19, p. 163). 7C FRIZZLE said that he attended the EC, ar.d there was no information withheld from the NRC: it was an open and productive meeting (Exhibit 19, p. 166). Interview of FULLER (Exhibit 21) Interviewed on February 10, 1997, FULLER, President,AssociatedProjects Analysis, and a member of the NY NOC, recalled the PRCE process at MY and the EFW event in August 1994. FULLER said he did not recall discussions about the plant configuration control versus inadequacies in the engineering and mainten6nce processes. In addition, FULLER did not recall discussions about a related EC, preparations for the EC.' or the withholding of information from the NRC. FULLER said that who arranged Leas with t
- refore, ny scussi 5 about scheduling. FULLER had no recollection of going to JC_
o ice to cuestion him a opics pertaining to the EFW or ot E issues. FlLLER said tha may have been part of a g t discussed topics with the NOC, but he ad no specific recollection of presence or input. ELD DI , 6F G Case No. 1-96 040 13
Interview of WHITTIER (Exhibit 22). Interviewed on February 19, 1997', WHITTIER, Vice President, Engineering, NYAPCo, said the plant root cause process is used for issues tha't cut across depetsental lines, and for issues that are judged to be more important. Generally, they start out using one. level and change as they gain additional information, because the assessment of the issue's significance may change (Exhibit 22, p. 144). WHITTIER said the pre EC meetings are to first understand what the issues are and then to get a cross section of people to) ether that are involved with the issues; the August 4,1994. EFW event was in;erde>artmental. The people that I were involved were NYAPCo Counsel, the Licensing Group, Operations, Maintenanc.e Department, and Engineering Deartment. And the purpose was to understand the facts, the causal factors, the root causes of the issues and to outline plans for corrective action. Typically, there is more than one meeting, and, eventually, they have a " dry run" and actually go through a presentation (Exhibit 22, pp. 106 and 107). WHITTIER said the decision as to which personnel would attend the EC was conducted on a group or collegial basis, and depending on the issue, by the appropriate functional manager (Exhibit 22, p.107). WHITTIER recalled thatMattended some of the pre EC meetings, but could not remember precisely Tiow many there were (Exhibit 22. ). 113). WHITTIER ')C said there were conversations obout what t at t1e EC, but he did not remember any issue being brought forward relating to the " level of candor." WHITTIER said he did not recall any ation that some issues were out of bounds, or that "we" did not want to bging those up to the NRC, to raise their attention or t aise a flag (Exhibi; 22, p.115). WH - ER al' g ER recall way conversati (WHITTIER) ind' t he did not ag conclusions. WHITTIER saidi lusions were focused ava 111ty of design, or safety anal formation, and had not focused on inadequacies involving post maintenance testing. WITTIER said it'was his personal belief, because he conducted his own informal investigation, that the engineering problems i-were focused on fairly basic >roblems with the post maintenance testing program.' WilTTIER felt that (Y had missed the mark in the p needed / C ' to have some si vesents. He did not rer focusing on that area, as seemed to focus on her area. WHIT."IER recalled telling is comments, because had asked for comments. WHITTIER said he very strongly that the cause process needs to be independent, and felt a little awkward in this position, because he did not want to tell what to write when they are doin; an i nt root cause. But,( had asked for h1 and in had ions. IER 7L . w. fI 1 E + Case No. 1 96 040 14
WITTIER said the final PRCE #190 di d reordering, but he did not recall anything part 33 and 134). WHITTIER did not recall in order to 90 along with WITTI 's rns< way convers Furthef,WHITTIER N said he did not remember ever saying that he did not agree with PRCE fl90aswritten(Exhibit 114). WHITTIER said he did not, at any time during this process, tell to bur the design conclusion somewhere in the body of the report, ra hi i hti it up front. WHiTTIER said what he remembered wa ts, which he gave, but he closed with, (Exhibit 22,
- p. 119).
WHITTIER said he believed the design issue was ) resented to the NRC', 61though maybe not in the thatMwould 1 ave liked. WHITTIER said it ~~7 C 'is his memory tha believed the design issue deserved greater emphasis than what he (WHI believed was appropriate (Exhibit 22, p.118). WHI1 TIER said he did not pressure toissuethePRCE(190 report,and was not aware of anyone doing that. IER said he did not recall FROTHINGHAM coming to him with ific discomfort about a le k conversation FROTHINGHAM had concerning the fact tha was uncomfortable with his ( 's) input to PRCE (190 and the prepara ion meetings for the EC (Exhibit 22, pp. 121 124). WHITTIER stated that he did not remember if6came in to see him, one on one, to tell him that he was very concerned about the " level of candor" 7C that was going to be displayed at the EC on the EFW issue and in PRCE #190 (Exhibit 22, p. 140). Interview of SMITH (Exhibit 23) Interviewed on February 20, 1997, SMITH, Manager, Operations De rtment, said he attended all the NY pre EC. meetings, but was no sure that 7C attended all of them. He did not recall conversations about whether end the EC (Exhibit 23,pecific EC, but recalled that M manager did would attend the s pp. 8 11). a SMITH did not recall configuration control being discussed in the pre EC meetings. He also did not recall any discussions about limits on the level of interaction between NRC and MY. SMITH attended the EC on October 14, 1994, and made a presentation. He said no information was directed to be withheld from the NRC, nor was inforsation withheld from the EC (Exhibit 23, pp. 12-14). SMITH recalled no discuss'ons about the " level of candor" during the EC, and K hewasnotawarethatMl D had voiced concerns about the information presented at the EC (Eidi )Tt 23, pp.1418). Interview of VEILLEUX (Exhibit 25) Interviewed on February, 20, 1997, VEILLEUX Manager, Maintenance Department. ' MYAPCo, recalled that he initially requested that BARR0N investigate the I Case N. 1 96-040 15
August 4,1994, EFW valve leakage event to determine the root cause of the problem. VEILLEUX said during.the investigation into the causes of the EFW 76 leaks, it became obvious that the sco>e needed broade (VE requested a more formal PR:E, an (Exhibit 25, pp. 12 and 13). VEILLEUX said the PRCE chartering authority is the individual who defines the scope of ex>ectation for the root cause determination,.therefore, he (VtILLEUX) 1elped to define the scope of PRCE #190 (Exhibit 25, p. 20), VEILLEUX recalled several meetings with fromthetimePRCE(190was initiated, to the time it was finalized. LEUX recalled having three meetings with M and attended other group meetings. VEILLEUX said they 7[_ had more than the average number of PRCE meetings, because of the significance and the technical nature of the issue (Exhibit 25, pp. 20 22). VEILLEUX saidW did not convey to him a concern that someone else, other .than the chartering authority, was directing Show to write PRCE #190 (Exhibit 25, p. 27). VEILLEUX recalled some format type changes as PRCE #190 went through various editing modes and changes, but did not recall that the order of the root 76_ causes was an issue. VEILLEUX said he was are th greed with the changes, and said he did not pressure (Exhibit 25, pp. 30 34). VEILLEUX did not recal1 @PPlaying that he did not agree with how the JC pre EC meeting was going, or w1at was going to be presented to the NRC (Exhibit 25, pp. 40 and 51 54). VEILLEUX said the " dry runs," were a matter of discussing what was the best )resentation, how to put this information forward in the best possible light, low to refine presentation skills, and were not of the nature that we should withhold in5reation. VEILLEUX said he was not aware of any information that was purposely withheld from the EC (Exhibit 25, p. 41). VEILLEUX said the order of how the root causes are presented does not matter, as long as they are all somewhere in the paper, or somewhere in the i presentation to the NRC. VEILLEUX said it did not matter from a technical nature and the order did not matter to him (Exhibit 25, p. 44). VEILLEUX said he was not aware thatM complained to any HY officers or /C officials, relative to the " level of candor" that was displayed at the EC (Exhibit 25, pp. 51 and 52). VEILLEUX recalled the EC process, to a certain degree, as being a healthy process and there were a lot of discussions. VEILLEUX explained that NY ideritified some good information and good root causes came out of the process, although it was a rather lengthy process. It was his first EC, but he believed that everyone did well, and it was their intent to provide accurate and truthful information for themselves and to the NRC (Exhibit 25, pp. 55 and ~ 56). F IC OF tE I Case No. 1 96 040 16
Interview of FROTHINGHAM (Exhibits 26 and 27) Interviewed on March 25,1997. FROTHINGHAM, Manager, Quality Programs Department (QPD), MYAPCo, said the August 1994 EFW event occurredduring a rc shutdown, and it apeared that MY was= originally unaware of the significance of the event. BARWN worked on the initial internal investigation for eleven days, then hi isor requested the assistance of a PRCE trained individual (Exhibit 26, p. 1). FROTHINGHAM said the editing of PRCE #190 was sensitive and sought to ensure quality, clarity, readability, and to confirm there was reasonable evidence to identify the causal factors. FROTHINGHAM did not recali any particular causal factor at this time and did not recall the term " configuration control" as , specifically applicable to this EFW event (Exhibit 26, p.1). FROTHINGHAM recalled that the work order for the eccentric butterfly valves was eenerically written and Quality Assurance had informed MY Maintenance that the did not have enough specifics. FROTHINGHAM said the eccentric butterfly valves were made by Contramatics, Inc., and recalled that another set of valves that were similar were also used in the plant. FROTHINGHAM said PRCE
- 190 was not completed prior to the EC on October 24, 1994. FROTHINGHAM said that procedural adequacy was questioned in this event and there were approximately three meetings that he attendet prior to the EC. FROTHINGHAM recalled that the biggest concern about attendance at the EC was whether he would attend, which became the first EC he attended for MY. FROTHINGHAM could not recall whetherWattended the EC (Exhibit 26, p.1).
FROTHINGHAM recalled that the EC was to be a public conference, therefore, how the information was to be presented was a concern: however FROTHINGHAM stated this concern did not compromise MY's integrity. FROTHINGiAM said he did not recall any mention that information obtained by HY was not to be presented to the NRC (Exhibit 26, p. 2). FROTHINGHAM said after the EC, he ~did not recall any discussions about whether the information provided to the NRC was inaccurate (Exhibit 27, p.12). FROTHINGHAM recalled a unique meeting #190 through the bureaucracy.at the compl initiated to expedite processing PRCE In attendance were VEILLEUX, STOWERS, BARR0N, James TAYLOR. Senior Nuclear Safety Engineer, NSEG, NY, and himself. FROTHINGHAM said the uniqueness was that the i ?RCE vM report was being presented to the affected managers and they were
- buyinginto the conclusions prior to the formal presentation to the PORC, thereby speeding up the formal PORC review process, which was a lenghy process, recuiring many revisions. FROTHINGHAM said, in the past, PRCEs were understaffec. resources were constantly being pulled away, and due dates were continually extended. FRO 1HINGHAM said this meeting was an attempt to move the PRCE #190 report quickly (Exhibit 26, p. 2).
FR01hlNGHAM did not recall a lot ssion on the substance of the rex)rt, or any prolonged discussions with during the development of the PICE
- 190, but recalled discussions more on to move the report, the'pa bit 27.
. 12). FROTHINGHAM said that, as far as he knew of the PRCE fl90 report. Although \\f 3A I Ca'se No. 1-96 040 17
4 may have complained that some individuals might have been upset with his recommendations, that would have been fairly routine (Exhibit 27, p.13). FROTHINGHAM said he did not recall any discussion wherein M stated that / c. he did not agree with the PRCE #190, or the way the information was provided to the NRC in the EC, or that he was going to raise his level of concern higher up the organization (Exhibit 27, pp. 20 and 21). FROTHINGHAM said he was unaware of any directions to o undertake a ,-7 C review or an investigation, to try#190 (Exhibit 27, p. 23). and find out what concerns were regarding the development of PRCE FROTHINGHAN said, with respect to PRCE #190, there was a request by FRIZZLE that the NSARC review the root cause analysis and draw conclusions about the adequacy of the root cause. That review (Exhibit 15) was performed, but review by the PORC, which was somewhat resistant to the NSARC's role, was delayed. FROTHINGHAM also explained that the Management Review Board (Exhibit 16) discovered that, through a misunderstanding, the recommendations for PRCE #190 had not yet been put into the NY task process (Exhibit 27, pp. 24 and 25). Interview of LEITCH (Exhibit 28) Interviewed on March 25. 1997, LEITCH, Vice President Operations, MYAPCo, i said from an officer level he had the overall responsibility for at least the maintenance aspects of this issue, ex)laining that post maintenance testing is an Engineering responsibility. LEITC 1 said because of the serious nature of this problem, they commissioned a PRCE, the second highest level of root cause evaluation that was in place at that time. LEITCH said he approved the charter for the PRCE, so as to define exactly the scope of investigation and to insure that it was thorough, and did not just address the specifics of this ) articular issue, but also address the generic implications of the issue. EITCH said the normal process is to chartering authority (Exhibit 27, pp. provide the final report to the 9 and 10). LEITCH recalled a number of actions resulting from the PRCE #190, a number of recomendations, and meetings involving people who had to implement those. recomendations. The meetings were to insure clarity surrounding the recommendations: to be sure that the recommendations made sense; and to insure the recomendations were tracked to completion. He recalled a meeting that discussed PRC.E #190 when it was in the final draft stage (Exhibit 27, pp.10 and 11). LEITCH said he knew all three of the indisiduals who conducted the PRCE fl90, but did not remember if they atte the pre EC meetings. LEITCH recalled no 2 discussions about whether or not specifically, would attend the EC (Exhibit 27, pp.14 and 15). LEITCH said NY had pre EC meetings, which he atte xled,' and said the attendance selection for the pre EC meetings was not quite as formal as one may think, in that they decide to have such a meeting and the people that are involved show up for the meeting. People, generally, understooo who was involved; there EI Case No. 1-96 040 18
were some informal discussions, and the people that felt they had a role showed up for the meeting (Exhibit 27, pp. 12 and 13). LEITCH said for the EC, even before the " dry run " they had a planning session: wherein they discussed what points needed to be made, who is the best person to make those particular points, prepare the view graphs, and the text to use for the EC. He added that it became clear who the presenters would be, in this case, Engineering, Maintenance, Quality Assurance, as well.as the executive management of Operations, Engineering, and FRIZZLE, who chose to As far as who makes the decision who goes, he did not recall the come. decision making process, but there was some issue having to do with something as mundane as transportation arrangements. LEITCH explained they had difficulty obtaining commercial jet service to King of Prussia, Perins'ylvania, so, NYAPCo chartered two small air) lanes. One flew from Portland, Maine, and 6ne flew from Wiscasset, Maine. Tiere was a ">ractical limitation, as to how many folks could fit in the two airplanes (Ex11 bit 27, pp.13 and 14). LEITCH said that, during the conduct of the " dry runs," he did not recall discussions about the " level of candor" or limits on the free flow of information that would be discussed at the EC. LEITCH said that no information was withheld from the NRC at the EC (Exhibit 27, pp.16 and 17). id he has no recollection of meetings withM, wherep LEI to the NRC, what may be hidden from the NRC, or that the " level o specifically brought up questions about the 1nfornation being pr candor" with the NRC was less than desirable (Exhibit 27, pp.17 and 18). l LEITCH said, at that time, worked close to him, physically, and they would see each other in the a s and talked frequently about a whole lot of 7C things. However, he did not recall any discussion, at a'1 about a " lack of candor." nor did he remember any specific mee on any subject, for that matter. LEITCH said he a and continue to have, a very constructive relationship. To LE seems to be free to talk about any number of issues (Exhibit 27, pp. 19). LEITCH said, c16arly, the valve being installed backwards was a configuration control issue, although he did not recall appl ng that particular terminology to the situation. LEITCH said he would descri those issues as subsets of, what he would call configuration control, a broader tenn. He said problems with post paintenance testing are illustrative of configuration control. So, he would say, that there are many things that could lead to configuration control problems, and he would define configuration control as being a broader term than maintenance procedures or post maintenance testing. LEITCH said there were a lot of corrective actions, stemming from this particular issue, that would have addressed configuration control. He did not recall using that particular ters, but the actions, certainly, would have addressed configuration control (Exhibit 27, p. 19 and 20). LEITCH said he may have told FULLER that the eccentric butterfly valve was an issue, and one of the things that the NOC ought to take a look at. But, as far as prescribing who FULLER should talk to, or what documents he should f I IRE ,OFKT gGI I Case No. 1 96 040 19
review, he did not recall having any discussion with him 10 that regard (Exhibit 27, p. 22). LEITCH said the document titled, "A Hanagement Review Board Report," is more commonly call a Event Review Board, and is the highest level of event review. It is always commissioned by an officer of the comphny to investigate serious issues, and he commissioned the one dated, May 2,1995 (Exhibit 27, p. 23). Aoent's Analysis The August 4,1994 EFW event escalated into a more significant issue than initially assumed. The 01 investigation's testimonial and documentary. evidence confirm the progression from a relatively low level incident, to the highest level of attention at MY, with a resultant NRC enforcement conference.
- was involved with the NY EFW event investig The 01 intery ews, with supporting documentation, confirm, in
- general, account of the event's progression. The PRCE #190 review process a the NY nferences were confinned. However, the only testimony regardi concerns with the PRCE #190 conclusions, confi nyesti was by BRAND and WHITTIER.
led that WHITTIER recalled tell his o ns, but added that he further t Neither interviewee recalled ing re ere vera f information provided to the EC. the interviewees recalled discussions during pre EC meetings about iness with the PRCE #190 conclusions, none recalled discussions a possible attendance at the EC, none recalled receiving /C direct ons a ut the " level of candor" to be used with the NRC, and none received any directions to withhold pertinent information from the NRC. identified Mindividuals he smcifically told that he had a concern a t the information that was going to a provided to the NRC, t he would make his concerns known to others. OI interviewed individuals and none of them recalled a conversation wherein related /C problems with the information that MY rovi r advi i fo o his concern. The NRC:RI staff was provided extensive documentary information obtained by OI:RI, but did not find anything to indicate that information was withheld from the MtC. ~ Notwithstanding the denials of other a1 sed his concerns over thi tter with them 01 considers ae ible witness. In addition, volunteered to take a polygra o verify the veracity of his a ations. However, testimonial ey dence and the documentation obtained ~/ 6 during the investigation do not a> pear to support the concern that root cause information on the EFW event may lave been withheld from the NRC. OI concludes, from the evidence obtained, that given the amount of time elapsed, fE I RE I I Case No. 1 96 040 20
the memory and emphasis of any meetings about PRCE #190. findings and the " level of candor" may have been e.evated in consciousness, but not l viewed by others as mving the same significance. This might explain, somewhat, the discrepancy between his concern and the available evidence. Conclusion Based on the evidence developed during this investigation, 01 did not substantiate that NYAPCo officials willfully provided incomplete or inaccurate information regarding the EFW to the NRC during an October 14, 1994, enforcement conference. 9 4 l I F0
- C DI L W
0 I 0F 'GA DNS F EG.: I FI
- 0FgDIREs, Case No. 1 96 040 21 I
l l
I ( 4 4 T}lISPAGELEFTBLANKIN1HTIONALLY _IC DIy na W WW OF I 110N I F 1D IC DI ICE I GA ON I Cise No. 1 96 040 22
o i LIST OF EXHIBITS Exhibit No. Descriotion 1 Investigation Status Record dated, October 24, 1996. 2 3 Emergency Feedwater Valve Leakage Event Investigation. eport, PRCE R
- 190,andDrafts.
- 4 NRC Memorandum, YEROKUN to Letts, dated December 16,1996.
5 HY Procedure, No. 20 3001, Rev. No.15, issue 6 ate April 25, 1994. 6 (Engineering) Root Cause, dated August 8, 1994. 7 NY Letter to the NRC, dated September 1, 1994, with LER 94 016 l attached. 8 NRC Letter to MY, dated September'22, 1994, with attached Inspection Report 50 309/94 15. 9 NRC NOV Letter to HY, dated October 20. 1994, with attachments. 10 MY Letter transmitting LER 94 016 01 (Rev. 1) to NRC, dated October 28, 1994. 11 NRC Letter to NY, dated December 5, 1994, with attachments (NYAPCo's response to NOV). 12 13 NY Nuclear Oversight Committee Reports, dated August 13, 1994, 8 January 16, 1995, June 7, 1995, and August 15, 1995. 14 ' ' NRC Memorandum, YEROKUN to Letts, dated Janur.ry 31,1997, 15 Yankee Atomic Electric Company Hemorandum, ISARC Heeting Report, dated October 21, 1994, with attachments. 16 NY Hanagement Review Board Report, dated May 2, 1995. 17 Interview Report of BRAND, dated December 10, 1996. 18 19 Interview Report of YER0KUN, dated December 12, 1996. E CE D 3NI Case No. 1 96 040 / 23 N
20 Transcript of Interview with FRIZZLE, dated Eebruary 3, 1997. 21 Interview Report of FULLER, dated February 10, 1997. 22 Transcript of Interview with MilTTIER, dated February 19, 1997. 23 Transcript of Interview with SMIT 11, dated February 20,1997, 24 25 Transcript of Interview with VElllEUX, dated February 20, 1997. 26 Interview Report of EROTHINGHAM, dated March 25,199'7. 27 Transcript of Interview with FROTHINGHAM, dated March 25,1997. 28 Transcript of Interview with LEITCH, dated March 25, 1997. i I (\\ NOT. IC SCL JRE W FI LD I DI 0FFI 0F GA G NI Case No. 1 96 040 24 i _a}}