ML20199C978

Interview Rept of R Rothier, on 970128 Re Allegation That Former Vermont Yankee Employee J Massey Was Discriminated Against Because of Raised Concerns W/Design Change for Plant Advanced Off Gas Sys

ML20199C978
Person / Time
Site:	Vermont Yankee
Issue date:	01/28/1997
From:	Teator J NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I)
To:
Shared Package
ML20199C790	List: ML20199C786 ML20199C833 ML20199C978 ML20199C980 ML20199C995 ML20199D014 ML20199D026 ML20199D042 ML20199D048 ML20199D054 ML20199D062 ML20199D069 ML20199D077 ML20199D085 ML20199D101
References
FOIA-97-365 NUDOCS 9801300108
Download: ML20199C978 (27)

Text

.

e C

4 c EXHIBIT 40 l

4 9801300108 980128 PDR FOIA i HICKEY 97-36S PDR i

Case No. 1 96 005 Exhibit 40 '

.<fe! 5t s it s

IKTERVIEW REPORT OF RICK R0lmilER On January 28, 1997, R0(CHIER was re interviewed by the reporting agent. The interview was conducted under oath at Yankee Atomic Electric Company (YAEC),

580 Main Street, Bolton, MA 01740. ROUTHIER was represented during the interview by J. Patrick HICKEY, Esquire, Shaw, Pitman, Potts & Trowbridge, 2300 N Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20037 1128. HICKEY's office telephone number is (202) 663 8103. R0lmi!ER stated that it was his choice to have HICKEY represent him, and he understood that HICKEY represented other parties associated with the investigation. ROUTHIER stated that he was not under any pressure from Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Plant (VY) management to have HICKEY represent him. ROUTHIER provided the following information regarding an allegation that forn,er VY employee James MASSEY was discriminated against because he had raised concerns with a design change for the VY Advanced Off Gas System (A0GS).

R0lfTHIER believes that in June or July 1994, he, not MASSEY, first identified the problems with the VY control room 9 50 panel neutral wires being wired to an energized 120 volt panel. He said that those problems were different than problems with the drawings that had been identified earlier by him and MASSEY.

ROUTHIER said that the neutral wire issue was found to not be a safety concern (although it was an incorrect wiring scheme) within a few days of him discovering it, based on MASSEY's and VY Engineer Bill WITTHER's review of documentation which showed that the 120 volt panel was a grounded neutral, l(

thus making it safe. ROUTHIER said that the wiring problem was lhysically corrected during the 1995 refueling outage by electricians that le supervised.

ROUTHIER was asked if his contract was altered in any way after VY Engineer Pat McKENNEY and YAEC Engineer George HENGERLE completed their assessment of whether the A0GS design change project should continue. ROUTHIER recalls that he was made a full time contract employee on the A0GS project prior to McKENNEY's and HENGERLE's assessment.

R0lfTHIER was questioned regarding whether the " Resources" recommended on page 3 of the McKENNEY and HENGERLE June 3, 1994, assessment re> ort were provided and stated that: 1) Hike BALL was originally assigned to )e the VY project mechanical engineer, but HASSEY didn't like him, and due to the design change being delivered later than expected. another mechanical engineer was never assigned to the project: 2) he (ROUTHIER) became the dedicated Fischbach electrical engineer for the remainder of 1994; and 3) Fischbach Mechanical Engineer Dave HOUDE, was assigned to the project in late 1994, and HOUDE was replaced by Richard Van LEEUWEEN, who worked on the project in December 199/..

ROUTHIER was asked whether MASSEY discussed with him the A0GS_ periodic project reports which were required by MASSEY's supervisor, Pat CORBETT.

AGENT'S NOTE: On aage 2 of the November 15,1994 " Written Notification of Unacceptable Jo) Performance' nroduced by CORBETT for MASSEY, CORBETT expected iASSEY to prepare peri , ' nroject reports every two weeks.

with the first report due on July :.,, 1994. CORBETT wrote that, C "Cor.trary to the expectation, only 2 periodic reports have been issued EXHIBIT M CASENO-1-96-005' PAGE / d PAGE(S)

since 7/15/94" (attached).

C,-

ROUTHIER said that NASSEY asked him to draft the reports and that MASSEY would then edit them. ROUTHIER recollected that they were done on a monthly basis, and that a total of four were actually completed. When informed that CORBETT claimed that only two had been completed between July 15 and November 15, 1994, ROUTHIER agreed that was probably true.

At that point in the interview, ROUTHIER was asked to review his files to locate any of the reports that he had in his possession, ROUTHIER returned approximately fifteen minutes later and produced three July 26. November 29, and December 14, 1994 (attached), periodic reports dated AGENT'S NOTE: Only one of those reports falls between the July 15 to November 15, 1994, time period that CORBETT referenced in the written notification of poor performance.

On February 5, 1997, counsel to VY, Pat HICKEY, mailed the reporting agent t*:0 other periodic reports dated August 24, 1994, and January 16, 1995 (attached).

ROUIHIER was asked to coment on whether MASSEY met the " Future Exoectations" that CORBETT listed in a document signed by CORBETT on June 20, 1994 (attached). ROUTHIER stated: 1) an " unequivocal no" that MASSEY did not establish good teamwork with YAEC and did not actively support them during design development: 2) he doubts that MASSEY met the expectation to promptly

( .

pursue processing and approval of the project scope memorandum because MASSEY didn't get much involved in writing it. It was written by YAEC Engieser Lou CASEY: 3) he assisted MASSEY in preparing the request for resour s, but does not know if it was completed by the July 1.1994, required date:

4) already discussed in this interview re mrt: 5) he does not know if MASSEY actively pursued arranging for VY or Fisc1 bach mechanical engineering support:

6) MASSEY did not actively pursue the design / drawing discrepancy resolution because he (ROUTHIER) was doing it. ROUTHIER further stat v that MASSEY did

' not provide him with direction, supervision or assistance in performing that wqrk. Also, MASSEY never recognized that not all of the drawings needed total verification and updates, and MASSEY believed that all the wiring problems required total verification first, and that until that was done, MASSEY didn't want to even discuss the A0GS design and 7) contrary to the expectation, his opinion is that NASSEY did not maintain or demonstrate a positive attitude towards project completion.

ROUTHIER was asked how the information contained in his March 29, 1995, memorandum (attached) to McKENNEY contradicted MASSEY's concerns and claims that a total wiring verification needed to be completed before the design could safely move forward. ROUTHIER said that he physically inspected thirty percent of the wiring in the control room 9 50 panel (part of the A0GS) and felt that review, the work he had done with MASSEY, and the work he personally performed during the 1995 refuel outage, uncovered very few errors in the drawings, which proved to him that they had been correct that a total wiring verification effort was not necessary and that the design could have been safely implemented without a complete review, ROUTHIER added that, during the Case No. 1 96 005 2 EXHIBIT YO PAGEN OkPAGE(S)

~

outage the wiring verification was completed in approximately two weeks, at a cost of $18,000, far under the amount of time and money that MASSEY had

(. projected for the verification.

ROUTHIER also did not feel that MASSEY had the desire to correct the drawing discrepancies or problems, although MASSEY was quick to point out any problems. He said that MASSEY never showed the desire to bring anything to a conclusion or see it through to the end. He also observed MASSEY finding a lot of humor and/or pleasure in finding discrepancies or problems with the project and wiring drawings.

ROUTHIER stated that, although he was frustrated with the design provided by CASEY, and despite the problems he identified with the drawings produced by CASEY, he felt that the design change project should move forward, because the problems were not significant. In fact. ROUTHIER personally believed that the design change implementation should not hav . been cancelled based on that, but feels that VY management's decision to canc 'l it was justified.

Reporu b [~

\ . ., l Jeffrey A. Teator Special Agent Office of Investigations Field Office, Region I

'(- Attachments:

As stated l

&L Case No. 1 96 005 3 EXH BIT 80 PAGE OFNPAGE(S)

. - i

CONFIDENTIAL C MEMCRANDUM TO: E.J. Massey DATE: 11/15/94 FROM: P.B. Corbet:

SUBJECT:

Written Notificatien of Unacceptable Job Performance

References:

A) Jcb Description, Senier Electrical / Mechanical Engineer

5) VY Policy VYP:113, Requirements for the Use of Pr:cedures

~

C) E,M/PSC Meeting Summary, 6/9/94 NOTE: This memorandum was prepared in draf t and was the subject of a meeting between BP3, P5C, & UM on 11/14/94. In a::empe to f airly represent the discussien that tock place EJM feedback is summarized at the end cf the memorandum.

Purpose The purpcse cf this memorandum is to document that your recent perf rmance is not meeting jcb performance expectatiens for your pcsitien and title.

Performance Expectations Not Being Het

1) Freduce cualitv desic s- directiv ceerdinat and sure- rise .

irrie-entatien of assi ned credeers. manace cre" ect s within l

actreved rararecers Ir f erence A) *

2) Sure-rise diree 1v er eeerdinate the werk ef rersennel er centracters encaced ir assiered Orcieces as reemired treference A) .

As Project Manager for the ACG Improvement project you have been provided with adequate resources such that it wculd be reascnably expected that the design change would be ready for ' approval by this time and the I&T procedure wculd be in advanced stages. Contra: f to this, the design was delivered to me in an incomplete, unacceptable cend:. tion . Your dedicated assignment to this project a-d the O contractor resources made available to you should have been adequate to allow review of the design and incorporation of comments in a quality fashion. Significant efforts were required to '

be expended by others to rework and complete the package. Even when significant problems were identified you did not take the lead role in resolutien of the issues as would have been expected of the Project Manager.

I&T procedure development for the project has not progressed to the apprcpriate extent and contractor resources have not been effectively utilized in this direction. On 10/26/94 I inquired as to the state of the I&T procedure and specifically what was Dave Houde doing. Your response indicated "not much". At this time I reiterated your role as Projec: Manager and your responsibility to ef fectively utilize contractors. Your response and lack of progress C on the I&T procedure demonstrate that you are not effectively managing the contractor resources assigned to the project.

WITHHOLD FROM PUBLIC DISCLOSURE PER 10CFR 2.790 EXHIBIT M PAGE Y OFM/ PAGE(S) I

^ 4-therru P knowledee of and assure cereliance

.,tp^\ ..~3,. ~. h .a cedes with

1. $ C .[ . A), rules rerui s t ions and lieinse crewisienc e 5 c N e]n $isan exree**d d Usef rem andeve'vcemellance emtleve? 'r with erecedures f?!*Me9 E'* is a conditie C Contrary tc the expectation, the ACG Improvement design change did not have the ecmment resclutien and minor change process performed in acecrdance with AP 6004. When this was discussed durine several meetings en 11/3 and 11/4/94 you demonstrated that ycu did not have

~

an understanding of some of the basic procedure requirements.

, 4) crecare ceriodie erricet reeeres te he issued accreximatelv ev.-v 2 weeks, first reecre bv '7/15/94) (reference C) -

Centrary to the expectation enly 2 periedic reperts have been issued since 7/15/94.

Future Expectations The folicwing changes in jcb perferr.ance are required. If you do not impreve your performance you will subject yourself to further disciplinary action up to and including termination.

resolve design change issues and pursue approval by 11/30/94.

effectivelv manace ecmeletion of I&T procedure for approval by 12/30/94. Ne'e : E me d A d ca cd*y/4=J c d 'O'M*/ M T5/ I

• perf orm activities in accordance with applicable pre $***'M it[e E*H policies cedures and gt l

prepare and issue periedic repcrts approximately every 2 weeks Ryl i

Su m ry of EJM Position / Response (by PSC)

EJM cpinien is that adequate rescur.ces have not been applied to the jcb. EJM had uriginally proj ected much greater manpcwer requirements.

In respense to the use of centractors for I&T generation, EJM noted that I&T was mainly electrical in nature a .d that was why Dave houde wasn't used for the I&T. s EJM noted that he had been under significant pressure to get the #

design cut and that was the cause of the procedural issues and why the design was delivered for approval without drawings.

EJM expressed opinien that cancellation of vacation was not appropriate unless it was for a reason that was absolutely necessary.

EJM expressed that he needed to look at the expectation relative to I&Tgenerationtoconfirmthatitwasachivabgey F

9 .-

1. I N <

• C Vl f. .k e:t E Manace'lb M ,. .Aese 'q L.,

~

k/-4 ( AW 4,4 ~~- /yn 1'

. / / G tL4'.4./

f .

/"$, EmcYoyee Receipt Ack::ra sedgec.

.< ,, #M A ,Y /

DISTRIBUTION: EJM, BR3, .O b N

[ Nbb 2 PAGE OF PAGE(S)

WITHHOL FROM PUBLIC DISCLOSURE PER 10CFR 2.790

)

PERIODIC REPORT # 1 07/26/94 EDCR 94-402, AOG MODIFICATIONS Project Activity this periods

- Wiring verification of "A" Dryer skid / control cubicle

- Wiring verification of "B" Dryer skid / control cubicle

- Review field data and produce accurate CAD drawings of the following:

'A' vacuum skid "B" vacuum skid "A" glycol (H2O) skid

• B" glycol (H2O) skid

'A' recombiner skid "B" recombiner skid

- Continued field verification of system wiring at terminal boxes and instrument racks.

- Design is in progross at YNSD, preliminary copies of work to this poit.t have been distributed for review at V.Y. and Bolton, Project activity planned for next period Point-to-point cross check of CRP 9-50 CAD drawings

- Verification and reconciliation of new system CAD drawings with existing schematics.

(~ - Review of EDCR text.and content.

Initiate material procurement Major Milestone st,atus:

Tarcet Revised Status Revised PRF Approved 7/31 Revised Scope Memo Approved 7/31 EDCR Issued for Review 7/31 Resolve Design Comments 8/31' Design Approved 9/15 I&T Issued for Review 10/31 I&T Comments Resolved 11/15 I&T Approved 12/1 COMMENTS:

Budget adequacy:

Aa RFR has been submitted to cover increased project scope for the remainder of 1994,as detailed in the revised Scoping Memo distributed 7/15.

CURRENT BUDGET RFR

-overall budget $ 35k $ 205k

! -to date budget $ 23k $ 23k

- $ Left $ 12k $ 182k Em YO PAGE OE:

h.iBIT MY PAGE(S)

cosessarTS: (CONTINUED)

Problent areas you'd like management to know of/ help with:

-none at this time Known problemis/ documented discrepancies:

No encountered No. resolved *

-Drawing inaccuracy 68 55

-design and wiring errors 21 10

-items requiring field verification 18 (physical pt, to pt. check)

• (Those unresolved to be part of EDCR)

New problems:

-control logic for drain tank pumps is different than that originally believed

-Aog and instrument AC power wired together in four (4) known instances at this time.

-control logic for both recombiners is not as shown on schematics.

( General comunents/ Issues being addressed by YNSD

-would like further discussion and study of current drain tank system problems in order to properly analyze shortcomings and formulate what we hope to be the final enhancement of this design.We are concerned this issue has not been adequately postulated.

-recurring problem of recombiner wetting at startup and potential causes have not been addressed ir. depth.

-would like panel drawings to reflect field location of cabling and

! panel wiring as currently installed.Would also like more

! attention paid to enhancement of existing terminal hardware in l CRP 9-50.

DISTRIBUTION: BRB-V.Y. ENG. LED-OPS PBC-V.Y. EE & C JTH-TSS

( EVB-OPS GAM-OSS

! LJC-YNSD MLM-TRNG l

LJW-FPS Ji'P-VPE FPL-V.Y. I&C MTW-V.Y. I&C TAW-V.Y. MAINT. EVL-RP JRH-YNSD

'C EXH BlT YO l

PAGE. Ok PAGE(S)

.c w.3W '1 / 4 /g 4 IIlk9]

PERIODIC REPORT 11/29/94 EDCR 94-402, AOG MODIFICATION Project activity since last reports

-Inability to define Drain Tank Design scope  :

• Reference Memo L.J. Casey to file 7/20/94,significant revision to design intent as stated on scoping memo of 7/5/94.

• Ref. AOG project meeting minutes notes, 8/3/94, citing need for steam trap maintenance (as yet unperformed ) . No definitive spec for number or type of transmitter (s) needed at that time.

• constant temperature monitoring of condensate lines and Drain Tank area throughout Sept. and early Oct.

• Ref. Memo L.J. Casey/R.E. Swenson to S.R. Miller, 9/20/94 summary of repeated temperature monitoring of AOG condensate, recommended means of lowering line temps to facilitate installation of vacuum drag bypass line.

-Postulation of rupture disc replacement

• Re f . Memo T . E . Swenson to L.J. Casey, 10/25/94, regarding inability c,f rupture disc to respond to hydrogan detonation.

• Ref. Memo J.R. Hoffman to EDCR 94-402, 10/31/94, recommending intercondenser upgrades to minimize rupture disc actuation.

Parameters for vessel isolation and contractor to perform intercondenser requalification as yet undetermined.

-Extensive correction and rework of CRP 9-50, resulting in issuance of new panel-drawings by Corrective Update process.

C' -2xtensive correction and rework of original issue design drawings.

-Resolution of significant number of design comments and preparation of Design for PORC

-Co:.re: tion of design to reflect reduced scope as of 10/21/94

• Ref. Memo L.J. Casey to B.R. Buteau, 11/9/94, " Partial Implementation of EDCR 94-402".

-Rework of design drawings for 1995 portion of Design implement.

-Enharcement of bill-of materials and material procurement Project activity this periods

-Rescoping of design implementation for 1995 Outage work.

-Focus on generation of I&T

-Resolution of PORC comments and complete issue of EDCR

-Pursue purchase and reciept of all materials for full implementation

-Continued drawing review and corrective update Project activity planned for next periods

-Issue I&T for comments (NOTE: Contingent on YNSD co-ordination of intercondenser upgrades.)

-Generate detailed schedule and planning logic for Outage work.

-continue all re-work of schematic dwgs. for re-issue via Corrective Update process, as time permits.

C -Prepare all manhour and work location data and submit to RP

-Pursue all material purchase orders.

EXHIBIT h PAGE b 0F8YPAGE(S)

~ .

Blajor stilestone status:(Targets revised due to re-scoping of 10/31. I Tarcet Revised Status C Design PONad Designed Approved 11/16 n/a porced 11/16 11/30 PM approv.11/29 IET issued for Review 12/20 I&T comments resolved 12/27 IET approved 12/30 Schematics Reviewed 1/20 Schematics updated / issued 2/15 Known Nonconformances ac! dressed Cannot assess at this time (forthcoming ECN)

CoteentTs:

Budget adequacy:

• 1994 budget shown with labor to date ud projected material costs CURRENT BUDGET Labor Materials _

-overall budget $ 125k $ 80k

-to date $ 80k $ 60k (Projected)

-remaining 94 funds $ 45k $ 25k .

-It is expected that another S 25k will be utilized for 1994 Labor costs, leaving $40k unexpended.

1995 budget to encompass partial Design implementation (tull 1995 scope) field verification of wiring and review

(- of drawings.

-overall budget S 350k i

Problem areas you'd like management to know of/ help with:

-Definitive scope and apparatus for intercondenser requalification as yet to be provided by YNSD. Completion of I&T, schedule and manloading requirements issues requiring this information.

-Require more qualified engineering assistance to address wiring errors mechanical drawing issues and design parameters.

Known problems / documented discrepancies:

-AOG/ Instrument AC wiring and Recombiner control logic nonconformances to be addressed in ECN.

-Field verification to be performed as part of I&T to address known and unknown wiring / drawing discrepancies.

-all known design drawing errors addressed and corrected.

C EXHIBIT YO PAGE h 0FA'/ PAGE(S)

General Comunents/ Issues

-A significant amount of work remains in regard to the correc. tion cud re-organization of the AOG drawings. Issues requiring resolution are as follows:

1.P & I diagrams, flow diagrams, and piping drawings have only been ret",0wed to the extent of their involvement with this design. As was the case with the electrical, drawings, it is suspected that correction and updating since installation is not accurate or current.

2.There currently exist a number of CVI and SUNTAC issued drawings that contain redundant information (both elect, and mechanical), some of which is conflicting. These drawings all exist as plant documentation, which creates a need to reconcile this information and delete unnessessary drawings.

3.AOG system drawings are currently enumerated with CVI,Suntac and V.Y. conventions. An effort should be made to label all system dwgs. with V.Y. numbering (i.e. 5920 ,B and G series).

4.A thorough review of original issue design drawings and design details relating to complete implementation in 1996 is required.

DISTRIBUTION: BRB-V.Y. ENG. LED-OPS

-PBC-V.Y. EE & C JPP-VPE E7B-OPS RJW-VYPM LJC-YNSD LJW-FPS MTW-V.Y. I&C TAW-V.Y. MAINT.

JRH-YNSD EXHIBIT YO PAGE / OFIY PAGE(S)

M \

k)EU PERIODIC REPORT 12/14/94 EDCR 94-402, AOG MODIFICATIONS Project activity since last reports

-Resolution of PORC comments, issue of EDCR

-Generation of I&T

-Devalopment of parameters for intercondenser requal.

• subworkorders for abatement & insulation, isolation

• interface with maintenance, I&C to avoid redundant activities, scheduling conflicts.

• working with YNSD on isolation guidelines and schedule.

-Continued persuit of material purchase orders.

-Continued drawing review Project activity this period

-Continue development of I&T, hope to issue for review.

-Receipt and storage of direct purchasr cerials

-Generate detailed schedule and plannir, logic for outage work

-Prepare and submit data for RWP's.

-continued drawing review Project activity planned for neact periods

(

-Continue rework of-schematic dwgs. for re-issue by corrective update.

-Resolve I&T comments, prepare for approval.

l

-Continued material receipt

-Complete all necessary sub-workorders

-Co-ordinate all inter-department (maint. , I&C) support activities.

Major Milestone atatusa Tarce.1 Revised Status Design Porced 11/16 PORC'd 11/16 Design Approved 11/10 APP'd 11/29 I&T issued for Review 12/10 12/30 writing I&T comments resolved- 12/27 1/10 I&T approved 12/30 1/11 Sub-workorders issued 1/10 Schematics Reviewed 1/20 Schematics updated / issued 2/15 Known Nonconformances addressed Cannot assess at this time (Forthcoming ECN)

C EXHIBff I('O PAGE // OFNYPAGE(S)

C000EEarrs:

.~ Budget adequacy:

1994 budget with labor to date and projected material costs per revised RFR sub. 12/5/94 CURRENT BUDGET Labor Materials

-overall budget $ 105k $ 60k

-to date $ 90k $ 60k

-unspent 94 funds $ 15k $ 00(proj.)

-1995 budget $ 350k Problem areas you'd like managa===t to know of/ help with:

-Would like independant review of I&T prior to formal issue for comments; request assistance of W. Wittmer of Corporate Engineering due to his familiarity with project parameters.

-More qualified engineering assistance to assist with resolution of drawing errors, reconciliation of field wiring discrepancies and achieve familiarity with entire EDCR would expedite implementation and' enhance veracity of these modifications.

Known problems / documented discrepancies:

-AOG/ Instrument AC wiring and Recombiner control logic problems to be addressed in EC3.

(- -Field verification to be performed as part of I&T to address known and unknown wiring / drawing discrepancies.

-Vacuum pp. cooling level alarms require re-engr . ring and documentation of low level switch / alarm on schematics.

-all known design drawing errors addressed and corrected.

General Comments / Issues

-Drawing correction and reconciliation issues noted in last report still apply.

-Although progress has been made, final parameters of intercondenser upgrade still incomplete.

-Details of CRP 9-50 panel modification for 1995 implementation (panel insert, mounting detail) have yet to be recieved.

-Drain tank pressure calculations for instrumentation actpoints (level switches, controller, P/I converter) still unaddressed.

DISTRIBUTION: BRB-V.Y. ENG. LED-OPS PBC-V.Y. EE & C JPP-VPE EVB-OPS RJW-VYPM LJC-YNSD LJW-FPS MTW-V.Y. I&C TAW-V.Y. MAINT.

JRH-YNSD -

EXHIIT Yd PAGE / OF8PAGE(S)

+ [~ f c ' . oc C: u w

e f.e.c.fpse(( yb EJP

,, .{l[Co. " 406-PERIODIC REPORT 5 2 g/24/94 IDCR 94-402, AOG MODIFICATIONS Project activity this pericdr

-Segin review in review and comments on EDCR 92-402, initial draft currently cycle.

-Point to point check of design schesistic drawings utilizing info-

-rmation documented during field verification of control cubicles.

-Review design sill of Materials ar'd initiate procurement.

-ongoing iis1d verification of sysces wiring at remote locations when available.

• Project activity planned for next periodt

-Continue status. material procur :,an , track requisition and rec!.eving

-Assist YNSD with design comment resolution and drawing enhancement to facilitate design approval

-Initiate work-planning procass and commence structuring IET guidelines. '

-incorporate next revision of CRP 9-50 CAD dwgs. as plant documents of record utilizing corrective update process.

Organize and document data for inclusion in ECN 1.

j Project status:

-Point to point cross check of CRP 9-50 cad drawings completed,-

awaiting revised copies from YNSD.

-control drawingscubicle by 9/2.field verifications complete, will complete CAD

-continued discussions on Drainage System modification, expect resolution shortly. Work order-in progress to check drain piping steam' traps, agg have impact on system temperatures. . -

-Currently revising system schematic drawings.

Major Milestone status:

Revised PRF Approved Taraat Revised Status 7/31 8/3 Approved Revised Scope Memo Approved 7/31 Awaiting approval EDCR Issued for Review 7/31 Review in Progress Resolve Design Comments 8/31 Design Approved 9/15 I&T Issued for Review 10/31 IET Comments Resolved 11/15 I&T Approved 12/1 ExHyll N PAGE /D OFM/PAGE(S)

e

(: COMMENTS

-L Budget adequacy: ,

An RTR has been appre.td to cover increased project scope 6 detailed in the revised Scoping Memo distrubuted 7/15/94.

CURRENT BUDGET

-overall budget 8 205k

-to date budget $__lf.k._

- 3 Left 4 169k Known problems / documented discrepancies:

-drawing inaccuracy No. encountered No. resolved

• 147** 55

-design and wiring errors 21 10

-item.s requiring field verification 18 (physical pt.to pt. check)

• those unresolved to be part of ECN 1

• • includes 73 found in latest revision of CRP 9-50 CAD dwgs. to be addressdd by YNSD.

l New problems * *

' (.-

-additional misrepresentations of control logic found during re-draw of recombiner schematics

-both "A" and "B" vacuum pp, skids contain a level switch in the alarm circuitry not shown on any drawing. control logic shown on schematics also contains errors.

-the shunt trip breaker shown on various system drawings feeding the 480vac motor in the Victoreen cabinet has been bypassed, resulting in a 480 volt circuit running through field conduit to an-unprotected motor.

-a number of discrepancies have been found between information shown on drawings and MPAC equipment descriptions. . .

General Comments / Issues being addressed by YNSD

-certain elements of drain tank design st;.11 being-debated, expect resolution shortly.

-CRP 9-50 cad drawings being revised to incorporate corrections and comments submitted 8/15.

DISTRIBUTIONt BRB-V.Y. ENG. LED-OPS PBC-V.Y.=RE & C3 . JTH-TSS EVB-OPS GAM-OSS LJC-YNSD MLM-TRNG LJW-FPS JPP-VPE TPL-V.Y. IEC MTW-V.Y. IEC TAW-V.Y. MAINT EVL-RP C JRH-YNSD EXHlBIT M PAGE M OFO PAGE(S) i

- J

A0G PROJECT MEETING-8/3/94

,A0G A meeting to discuss ongoing issues in regard to EDCR 94-402, Modifications,was held at Trailer 19 at the V.T. site on Wednesday, Aug. 3 at 1300 hours0.015 days <br />0.361 hours <br />0.00215 weeks <br />4.9465e-4 months <br />. The topic of discussion was the propossd Aog Drain Tank level control enhancement,with this meeting considered a forum to resolve the. differences of opinion which have evolved in the formulation of a disposition to this problem. In attendance were L.J.Casey, R.T. Vibert, J.M.Callaghan,and R.R.

Swenson of YNSD, E.J.Massey, W.Wittmer,and E. Van Bowman of V.Y.,and R.Routhier of Tischbach.

Van sowman began with an overview of current system operation and a synopsis of existing problems, notably the frequency of repair required to maintain Drain Tank Pumps F-151-A & 3. He. cited this and the degree of difficulty performing any maintenance in the drain tank pit as valid reasons to pursue simplifying the system.

He stated his desire to have the tank drain primarily with a siphon created by condenser vacuus,with the drain pumps operated manually as a backup. He also suggested that recirc valves OG-506 gagged or A & a bewith eliminated and replaced with a restriction orifices, automatic contro11ess removed,and that the downstream PCV's(833 A & B) be changed to LCV's controlled by tank level and manually.

Lou Casey and Dick Swenson presented a pump curve for single and parallel pump operation which verified past assumptions that both pumps running uncontrolled were at great risk of . pump runout and cavitation. Dick and Jim Massey expressed the opinion that enhanced automatic pump control would provide the most tangible means of tank level control and system drainage. This statement was

( followed by a. discussion of the drainline pressure and vacuum parameters, illuminating the narrow differantial between normal system temperature and flash point.It is felt that the ascention of the - line to the condenser combined with these variables could result in periodic loss of siphon, requiring pump operation to continue tank drain. Van Bowman was adamantly opposed to-anything more than minimal automatic pump control, stating that more direct control of 833A & B combined with operator control of the pumps would be an adequate alternative to the -possibility of loss of vacuum-in the drain line.

The operability of the current tank Vacuum Breaker was also discussed, with Van expressing his concern that it had been extremely unreliable.YNSD committed to re-calculating the breaker setpoint and including a reach-rod for the breaker isolation valve in the design.

design As the meeting items: came to a close, YNSD proposed the following

1. Utilizing a siphon created by condenser vacuum as the primary drain system. The existing drain pumps would be manually controled to provide a backup function.However,a low level cutout would be installed. to override pump operation in any position,and a high level signal would fire a pump placed in "AUT0".

EXHl8IT N PAGE d Ofidf_PAGE(S) l

)

~

2. control of the 833 valves would now be driven by tank level

• rather than line pressure,with operator control at CRP 9-50 via a-new controller.

3. Redundant displacers with electronic transmitters to provide signals for control and indication. V.Y. E.E. & C. has repeatedly expressed their opposition to electronic instruments f.T the drain pit environment, fearing the extreme temperatures are too close to the risk.

manufteturers stated tolerances anc, put their reliability at 4.LCV-506A & B will either be " gagged" or removed and replaced with restriction orifices, to be determined.

5.The vacuum breaker setpo'nt will be re-calculated,and a reach-rod will be designed for it's Isolation valve.

6. A suitable means of providing control room indication of the feasability of utilizing siphon to drain the tank will be designed.

It was also noted that a work order -had been initiated to inspect drain thetemperatures tank system drain traps, suspected to be a cause of' higher, been installed improperly. It appears the first trap checked had t

V.Y. EEEC reiterated at the conclusion-of-theJaneting that-were of the opinion that the siphon method of drTining tha system' contained too many uncontrolled variables to be considered reliable,and encouraged YNSD to focus on designing a workinc l

system,in department. spite of the possibility of disappointing the operation.s ~'

DISTRIBUTION: BRB - V.Y. ENGINEERING PBC - V.Y. E.E. & C.

EVB - OPC.

LJC - YNSD FPL - V.Y. I&C LJW - TPS E HIBIT N PAGE /h 0F[PAGE(S)

\

PERIODIC REPORT 1/16/95 EDC 94-402, A0G MODIFICATIONS Project activity since last reports

-Completion of IET and issue for comments

-Reciept and storage of Direct Purchase materials

-Issue of'CR #1 to address Design errors and omissions

-Interface with * ', Maintenance on I&T and Scheduling issues Project activity ,als period -

-Resolution of I&T comments, prepare for PORC

-W.O. requests for wiring verification, abatement, insulation

-continued work on revised estimate, schedule

-Monitoring progress of related maintenance activities (W.O.'s)

-Reciept of first-draft CAD schematics *

-Continued Drawing review Project activity planned for next period:

-Complete final outage schedule, estimate

-continued monitoring of relsted Maintenance, I&C W.O.'s

-Preparation of field drawings and work packages: _

C. -Staging of tools and materials for outage activities

-Corcinued drawing review Major Milestone status:

Tarnet Revised Status Design Porced- 11/16 PORC'd 11/16-Design Approved '11/30 APP'd 11/29 IET issued for Review 12/20 12/30 writing I&T comments resolved. 12/27 1/10 Resolved 1/12-I&T' approved 12/30 1/11 PORC REVIEW SCHED. 1/18 Sub-workorders issued 1/10 1/20 Schematics Reviewed . 1/20 2/20 Schematics _ updated / issued 2/15 ongoing Known Nonconformances addressed Cannot assess at this time (Forthcoming ECN)

C EXHIBIT h i PAGE /7 OEdY PAGE(S)

CONKENTS:

( . Budget adequacy:

199.: budget status CURRENT BUDGET Labor Materials

-overall budget $ 105k $ 60k

-funds used $ look

-unspent 94 funds

$ 22k(33k accrued)

$ Sk $ 38k(5k projected) 1995 budget status

-overall badget $ 350k

-costs to date Sk $ 1K Problem areas you'd like management to know of/ help with

-More qualified engineering assistance to assist with resolution of drawing errors and ongoing revision and cross-check of drawings as field verification program accelerates. Increased staff to assist with reconciliation of field wiring discrepancies and achieve familiarity with entire EDCR would expedite implementation and enhance veracity of these modifications.

Known problems /dt cumented discrepancies: '

-AOG/ Instrument AC wiring and Recombiner control logic problems to be addressed in ECN.

( -Field verification to be performed as part of I&T to address

(' known and unknown wiring / drawing discrepancies.

-Vacuum pp. cooling level alarms re g ire re-engraving and documentation of low level switch / alarm on schematics.

-all known design drawing errors addressed and corrected.

Genarel Comments / Issues

-Drawing correction and reconciliation issues noted in last report still apply

-Final issue of corrected schematic drawings to be implemented post-outage

-Preliminary schedule of verification activities outlined with V.Y.I&C, will provide final schedule next week.

DISTRIBUTION: B RB -V . Y . ENG . LED-OPS PBC-V.Y. EE & C JPP-VPE EVB-OPS RJW-VYPM IJC-YNSD LJW-FPS MTW-V.Y. I&C TAW-V.Y. MAINT.

JRH-YNSD

,xpa vr>

PAGE /l' OF_N_.PAGE(S)

.r*

EJM/PBC MEETING 6/9/94 Purposes Document results'of meeting between EJM & PBC on 6/9/94 related to AOG Improvements and to document expectations related to the project. As a result of differences of opinion that exist and as a - result of EJM memo of 6/6/94, .it is necess,ary to document the resolution of the concerns and the agreed upon approach to moving forward with the project.

Diseassion Items:

• Prior to independent assessment by PMM/GJH it was my gut feel that the drawing / design issues were significant but that they could be. resolved in conjunction with Design preparation and implementation. This was based on discussions with those involved and some limited knowledge of the drawings &

equipment.-

• Because of EJM concern (loud and clear),- I commissioned an independent- look to assess whether we could safely proceed with the design.

Reviewed results of PMM/GJH effort

+ significant drawing / design issues l (. + Two different efforts were underway

+ need coordinated CRP 9-50 effort I

+ Delay design and I&T

+ extra 94 11shbach resources

• Since EJM had been out & I had training on 6/6, I sent message and left copy, that I wanted to discuss the results of PMM/GJH effort. My message . indicated my opinion that the design could be accomplished and noted that teamwork with YNSD was critical to success.

• Reviewed that EJM issued memo on 6/6 prior to discussing the results of the independent review effort, I conveyed that I interpreted the memo issuance to mean that EJM couldn't or wouldn't support the design in conjunction with resolving drawing discrepancies. NOTE: EJM & ' I had discussed a draf t version of the memo prior to its issuance. EJM indicated that wasn't what he meant. His opinion was that the risk associate 4

-with performieg the modification with the drawing uncertainties was unacceptable in his opinion cnd that re, solution of the drawing discrepancies should be performed first. EJM also noted that he was afraid that the Plant would spend significant resources on the project and that the AOG system may-still not work as desired and have trouble during startup. EJM erpressed a willingness to do whatever the Plant C- wants and indicated that Be would work to his full extent to EX ' IT M9 PAGE / OF.MY PAGE(S)

WITHHOLD FROM PUBLIC DISCLOSURE PER 10CFR 2.790 U

=

make the project a success.

• I indicated that I was glad that we had discussed the issue as I had ' interpreted the EJM memo issuance as a lack of willingness to support the Design and that if this was the case that I was coming to the conclusion that EJM needed to be removed from the project. EJM's feedback indicated that He would support the plants decision but was concerned that even working very hard that we could still have trouble getting AOG back on line because design problems could be created as a result of existing wiring errors.

• For the project to be a success it is critical that good teamwork be established and maintained with YNSD. It was noted that PMM/GJH spscifically saw that there were two different efforts and suggested the combined CRP 9-50 resolution effort not cnly to resolve the drawing / design discrepancies but as a ,

way to develop some teamwork and common objectives. '

• - I noted that based on PMM/GJE report that I had done the  !

following:

+ Obtained rough estimate from- Fishbach for what it would cost for Rick Routhier for the rest of 1994 and for approximately 8 weeks of Fishbach Mechanical Engineering Support (approximately 90K).-

+ Advised Management of the anticipated additional 1994

-C costs and estimated 1995 costs-

+ Made a formal request to extend the Design date until-7/31/93 and the IET date until 10/31/94.

• The meeting ended on a generally positive note and EJM seemed genuinely committed-to moving forward.with the project.

Future'Ernectations (not discussed at the meeting)-

1) Establish good-teamwork with YNSD and actively support them during design development.

2) =Promptly pursue processing and-approval of the Project Scope ,

Memo. (in routing for approval by 7/1/94) C ' _~

3)- Prepare RFR by 7/1/94 for additional-required 1994 funding. , ,t -

4) -Prepare periodic project reports to be issued approximately every 2 weeks (first report issuance-by 7/15/94).

5) Actively pursue arranging for Mechanical support for the project (ME&C and Fishbach)

6) . Actively pursue drawing / design discrepancy resolution in conjunction with-Design change activities and throughout the C~. duration of the project. It needs to he recognized that not WITHHOLD FROM PUBLIC DISCLOSURE PER 10CFR 2.790 sa EX IBIT W./

PAG FU PAGE(S)-

1

all drawings need total verification and update but effsrts need to be focused where required with priority given to areas needed to support Design and I&T development.

-7)

Maintain and demonstrate a positive attitude towards project completion.

1 Prepared by: / Sc!(b

/ '

Reviewed by: .

Af / (!.21/py J n' n H A .2 s Aa"m~< G H~~~.sdn d.y' Ja'yL W 17=! ,

& .p.m ; ult mG<r; A 0 '- "' h l A n y lp-y x x p a a n y ~ ~ y ) M ~ ~., J " L .o<. Y . hmMy.*

{ g x s M j . ,,. , g g _ .f/~;c t r., / s. . .m e :} p } s..pkr4 A m -di )"&

ec A .4J~ a' & ^ + 4-cm xk &, ms .zLr j .nh4 - 6 A w/a7

.sn.Lan,n H iA&& A Aqw).L w - k pL r 1 w p x y~, zb ~+s <,

uQ 'r a e .A u:.A .l u J Q w % & m de-c+@ w .z h<;

A ) " -94a w l,in.nl.A <<>+~/ A , & N

/

r-f%

, <Ao u, ewu p, s o s- .*A~t V A 4yd .A ku e y;x 4 +, n y/%

P My A / 4- & [ f c.ya>-u G ~~- l  ;

.;rs .sq AA >-r p 4 ..usar ae'noe

%.<r<uuae.d

/M~em f, AmA~<A~CP a EXHIBIT M[)

PAGE Cf/ OFd PAGE(S)

WITHHOLD FROM PUBLIC DISCLOSU.RE PER 10CFR 2.790 l

J

From: Rick Routhier (CVAX:ROUTHIER)

To t . McK6nney

.Date: March 29, 1995,-(Wednesday) 7:46am subject: AOG Wiring Verifications Pat,

.As of 3/29/95, we are moving through the guideline for AOG wiring verifications in an expeditious manner, much faster than I anticipated. At this point, the only problems we have uncovered are a missing Instrument label and a termination of questionable integrity. All conductors have been well and properly identified and the drawings have thus far been totally accurate. I feel our progress will enable us to persue some AOG building field verifications and create an accurate set of drawings for the drain tank pump controls, with your concurrance. I am going to get a sub-Workorder issued in anticipation of our relay panel re-wiring (to alleviate the crossed neutral problem), which we should be ready to implement early next week. I will be sending you updates on a daily basis, please contact me if I can provide any more information or if you are interested in adjusting the direction of our efforts.

Rick CC:- Wright _G, Wood _L WITHHOLD FROM PUBLIC DISCLOSURE PER 10CFR 2.790 EXHIIT' b PAGE- _ORNY PAGE(S)

CONFIDLh MEMORANDUM To: E.J. Massey DATE: 11/15/94 FROM: P.B. Corbett

SUBJECT:

Written Notification of Unacceptable Job Performance Roferences: A) Job Description, Senior Electrical / Mechanical Engineer B) VY Policy VYM13, Requirements for the Use of Procedures C) EJM/PBC Meet.ing Summa:y, 6/9/94 NOTE: This memorandum was prepared in draft and was the subject of a meeting ~ between BRB, PBC, & EJM on 11/14/94. In attempt to fairly represent .the discussion that took place EJM feedback is summarized at the end of the memorandum.

Purpose Thd purpose of this memorandum is to document that your recent parfomance is not meeting job performance expectatiens for your position and title.

Pcrformance Expectations Not Being Met

1) . Produce cuality desiens, directiv ceerdinate- and surenise M ementation of -assiened erciects, manace ere'ieets within accreved earameters (reference A)-

2)

Sueerrise directiv er eeerdinate the work of eersennel er centracters encaced in-assioned ero iects as recuired (reference A) :

As. Project Manager for the ACG Improvement project ycu have been provided with adequate resources such that it would be reasonably expected that theidesign' change would be ready for approval by this time and the I&T procedure would be in advanced stages'. Contrary to this, the design was delivered to me in an incomplete, unacceptable condition. -Your dedicated - assignment to this project and the contractor resources made. available. to you should have been adequate to allow review of the design and incorporation of comments in a quality fashion. Significant efforts were required to be~ expendedJby others to rework and complete the package. Even when significant problems were identified you did not take the lead role in resolution of the issuet as would have been expected of the project-Manager.

IET.. procedure development for the project -has not progressed to the appropriate extent .and contractor resources have not been ef fectively ut.ilized in this direction. On 10/26/94 I inquired as to the state of the 1&T procedure and specifically what was Dave

'Houde doing. Your response indicated "not much". At this time I reiterated your role as Project Manager and your responsibility to effectively utilize contractors. Your response and lack of progress

=

on the I&T procedure -demonstrate that you are not effectively managing the contractor resources assigned to the project.

EX LIT Y[

PAGE . . OFN PAGE(S)

3)- Maintain a thersuch knowledae of and assure cemeliance with acclicable codes, rules reculations and license erevisiens

• (reference A) Use and comeliance with erecedures is a conditien of amelevment and is exeected frem- ever/ emelevee (reference B)e Contrary to the expectation, the AOG Improvement design change did not have the comment resolution and minor change process performed in accordance with AP 6004. When this was discussed during several meetings on 11/3 and 11/4/94 you demonstrated that you did not have -

an understanding of some of the. basic procedure requirements.

4) Praeare meriodie 'ereieet reeerts te be issued meereximatelv ever/

2 weeks, first reeert by 7/15/94) (reference C);

Contrary to the expectation ' only 2 . periodic reports have been

= issued since 7/15/94.

Future' Expectations Tho following changes- in job performance are required. If you-do not improve .your performance you will. subject yourself to- furcher

' disciplinary action up to and including temination. 1 resolve design change issues and pursue approval by 11/30/94.

ef f actively. manage completion of I&T procedure for approval hv 12/30/94. d.CCD ; MerhenM Whm "t!*t=J 2 "** ** f"*f Q'& M h H $50 \

-perform policies activities in accordance *with applicable procedures and- gl - h '.

L:

4yd prepara and.issut.. periodic reports approximately-every 2 weeks i Susanary of-EJM Position / Response (by ' PBC)

EJM opinion is thag adequate resources have nec been: applied to the

-job'. EJM had originally- projected- much greater. manpower requirements.

• L In response to the use of contractors-for IET generation, EJM noted that- I&T was mainly electrical in nature and that was why Dave Houde-wasn't used for the I&T.

EJM noted that he had been under significant pressure to get the design'eut and that was the cause of the procedural issues and why the design was delivered for approval without-drawings.

EJM expressed opinion that cancellation of vacation as noc appropriate unless 'it was for a reason that was absolutely necessary.

EJM expressed that he needed to look at the expectation relative tc IET generation to confim that it was achi vab[ef Y t 4 (C E Manag L A2W Y

- J R W-EmpYoyee - Receipe Ac edged

• D.ISTRIBUTION: EJM, BRB, .JKO EXHIBlT k[

PAGEh ONPAGE(S)

3 US.HRC -

h cq gg ] PH 2206 tlMITED DISTRIBUT1QN - ? :- --

• ALLEGATION REVIEW BOARD

SUMMARY

Z i; ' ---- '

.C

_t, g;p lOli3 Allegation Number NRR-96-A-0136 g , 1.RTERS TAC No. M98112 f,' -AJ4 fe'_{

4; --

1.

The NRR Allegation Review Board met on March 12, 1997, at 1:35 p.m.

2. Present at the meeting were: T. Martin

• F. Ashe E. Adensam* J. Lee

• M. Slosson M. Roe J. Zwolinski D. Murphy

3. Facilities / organizations involved: Vermont Yankee

4. Allegation title:

disconnection of motor heater circuits for the HPCI and RCIC systemsD which results in a loss of motor function; (B) crossing of safety-related and nonsafety-related power supply neutral A0G system may lead to a fire in the control room;/ (C) ground wiresdesign numerous in the errors, wiring errors and print errors associated with the A0G system resulted in personnel safety issues, system reliability issues, plant trips on more than one occasion, and the inability to safely start-up and operate the system as designed; (D personnel and their supervisors involve)d with A0G design efforts onquestionable quali issues; (E) management inattention and cover-up of safety issues; (F) management provided false or inaccurate information; (G) H&I.

5.

This allegation has been previously assigned to EELB for resolution.

6.

The f*48 previously determined the concerns identified in the allegation to be of potential safety significance.

7.

The 7 L' previously assigned this allegation a Priority Level cf 3 after consideration Region I. of its safety significance, based on previous review by O.

(Potenttal wrongdoing issues) The related OI case no. is 1-96-005 9.

The following resolution plan and schedule were approved by the ARB:

Activity Due Date Acknowledgment letter March 21, 1997

• ARd Members LIMITED DISTRIBUTION O .

go/a y/dIL f

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ J

T ' ' '

11MITED DISTRIBUTlqN

.t.

10. The basis for the above resolution activities is as follows: The AR8 i reconvened to dfscuss the results of the NRR inspestion and to disuss o action related to a letter from the alle The inspection determined that Item 4(A)ger has been datej(February appropriately 19,199J(

addressed by the licensee, Item 4 8) was substantiated, Item 4 l partially substantiated, and item (4(D) was not substantiated.In(C) was i addithn L Items 4d)theandinspection 4(F) weredid not to likely provide information that be n betantiated. The indicated results of the inspect 9en were provided on February IS,1997, as a feeder to the Region I inspection report. The report will be sont to the alleger by Region I.

The licensee had conducted a review and corrected a few discrepancies in the last refueling outage. The licensee identified one more discreper.cy this year and has connitted to additional reviews for completion. The identified discrepancies degrade thn electrical protection. However, this degradation would potentially affect only a very narrow range of electrical faults that are not comanly encountered. Therefore, there is no_immediate safety concern.

The OAC will send a letter to the alleger acknowledging receipt of his letter. The letter will also inform him that an inspection was recently conducted and the report will be sent to him upon issuance.

'll. Additiona? comments: - The ARB noted that the alleger should be informed (in closure documentation) that 1 issues recently and (2) NRC follo(wu)p will monitor licensee's actions.the licensee began to i

12; Prepared by:

Jean Office All ations Coordinator Date

/7

13. Approved by: _4n 7 # I d .7 Thomas I. Martin, Chairinan, ARg Date l h tributlen:

3M' rag 11a,-NRR AThadant, NRR

-GCaputo. 0!-

CERossi

.55 heron,, NRRAE00 JCalvo. NRR pMilane,1NRR VBeaston. NRR TKoshy, NRR DVito, RGJ iJLee, NRR OAC LIMITED DISTRIBUTION

o \" '

SHAW. PITTMAN, PoTTs & TROWBRIDGE l

. .. . . . . .. . .. . c m o . . , . . . .c,~. < c o..c... . ... .

2300 N St at ti, N. W.

WASHINGTON. D C. 20037

=o21663 6000 $ NQl #

4

= 0,.,..."'

c . . ., . DdoRec'd: 9-::7+ M -

Act',onOff: f'oe/

Bakted0m?: .- '

d]'"'c",,"'c",,','g'e-September 19,1997 ,

i i

i Mr. Russell A. Powell, Chief Freedom of Information Act/ Local Public Document Room Branch i U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Mail Stop T-6 D8

. Washington, D.C, 20555-0001 Re: Freedom of Information Act (FOlA) Request

Dear Mr. Powell,

Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. $ 552 (a)(3) and 10 C.F.R. $ 9.23, I am requesting all documents relating to the investigation by the NRC Region i Office of Investigations of Case No. 1-96-005 (allegations related to Vermont Yankee).

I agree in advance to pay any reasonable fees associated with this request.

Thank you for your prompt attention to 1,:Is request. I look forward to your response within ten (10) days, as required by NRC and FOIA regulations.

Sincerely,

\9BUL J. Patrick Hickey G

( ~

- - _ __