ML20043A779
| ML20043A779 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Vermont Yankee  |
| Issue date: | 05/17/1990 |
| From: | Sherman W VERMONT, STATE OF |
| To: | VERMONT YANKEE NUCLEAR POWER CORP. |
| References | |
| CON-#290-10380 OLA-4, NUDOCS 9005230114 | |
| Download: ML20043A779 (36) | |
Text
_ . _ . . . . . .
4I
- e. ' .
Q REl.ATED CORRESPONDENCE I:0Lni:10D.
UbHitC 6
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSIO90 NAY 21. A9 :55 before the
- ATO'MIC SAFETY AND LICENSING bog 0F SftEm 00CKf TING 4 S[pylc['
BRANCH
'In the Matter of )
) _
VERMONT YANKEE NUCLEAR ) Docket No. 50-271-OLA-4 POWER CORPORATION ) (Operating License
) Extension)
,(Vermont Yankee Nuclear )
. Power' Station) )
RESPONSES TO INTERROGATORIES BY STATE OF VERMONT TO-THE VERMONT YANKEE NUCLEAR POWER CORPORATION (Set No. 3)
~
Q.1 Pleaso identify each and every SALP report or "other enforcement actions" relating to VYNPS wherein SOV.
contende that NRC has placed "importance" on " clearly established management controls" for the purpose of alleviating any " shortage of qualified replacement
[ maintenance) personnel," as asserted in the answer to Interrogatory No. 8, Set.1 Response at page 7.
A.1 Vermont objects to this interrogatory because it misstates Vermont's response to Interrogatory No. 8.
Vermont did not respond that, in SALP reports or enforcementLactions specific to Vermont Yankee, NRC placed importance on clearly established management controls. Notwithstanding and without waiving this objection, Vermont states that the sentence from part 2 of Vermont's Response to Vermont Yankee Interrogatory (Set No. 1) No. 8:
1 9005230114 700517 PDR ADOCK 05000271 0 PDR
4 u, s o- t b-
"This fact is_ established by the importance placed on management by NRC in such vehicles as-SALP evaluations and' enforcement actions."-
was stated to indicate the importance attached to management control over nuclear plant activities. For example, the importance that NRC attaches to management
'is demonstrated by the SALP criteria, reproduced on page
~
- " RI J1 of NRC letter to Vermont ankee.of_ March 7, 1990 (Russell to Murphy), " Final Systematic Assessment of Licensea Performance (SALP) Report. . . . " The definition !
.i of each-SALP performance category, Category 1, Category 2 !
and Category 3, begins with'the'words, " Licensee management attention and involvement ...." The SALP l
process is set up to evaluate each aspect of licensee- [
i performance in terms of licensee management attention and. ')
' involvement. l Q.2 Does SOV-adopt as true and correct, as of the date of its .)
publication, the findings of SALP Report No. 50-271/88--
89 (appended" hereto as Attachment'B), that: i
- a. "The Maintenance Program was considered a licensee strength...;" i
- b. "The routine preventative and corrective maintenance !
programs continued to be effectively implemented, as evidenced by high equipment availability, I reliability, and performance;"
- c. " Management maintained a low tolerance for degraded equipment and typically pursued conservative resolution of maintenance deficiencies;"'
- d. "By the end of the assessment period, the licensee had developed and substantially documented a formal plan."
2 i
o f
'If your answer-is anything other than an unqualified affirmative, please identify each finding thatlSOV contends is (or on the date of the publication thereof
'was)-not correct, and for each such finding state all the reasons why SOV contends the; filing (sic) is not correct.
A.2 Vermont objects to this. interrogatory as irrelevant to this proceeding to the extent that it attempts to substitute adequacy of the present maintenance program for adequacy of the maintenance program in the extended period. Vermont does respond to this interrogatory.to the extent that inadequacies in the prenant maintenance i
t - program'have a deleterious effect on the ability.of I
- l. .
l structures, systems and components to perform.their ;
i functions in the extended period.
L Notwithstanding and without waiving its objection, Vermont responds, no. Reasons for disagreement with the findings are as follows:
- a. "The Maintenance-Program was considered a licenseo strength...;"
The maintenance program is inadequate as stated in ;
l Vermont's response to Vermont Yankee Interrogatory (Set J No. 2) No. 44. ,
l
'I L. .;
- b. "The routine preventative and corrective 'I maintenance programs continued to bo i.
effectively implemented, as evidenced by l l high equipment availability, reliability, !
L and performance;" i I
f i
3 l- b
)
=
a -"
The preventive maintenancefprogram is weak as stated =by facts 1, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11, 12, and 13, stated in response to Vermont Yankee Interrogatory (Set No. 2) No.
~
44.- Problems with the implementation of the corrective maintenance program are stated by fact 9, stated in response to Vermont Yankee Interrogatory (Set No. 2) No. -
44.
- c. " Management maintained a low tolerance for degraded equipment and typically pursued conservative resolution-of maintenance deficiencies;"
Management involvement has been-insufficient as stated by facts 1, 2, 4'and 6, stated in response to Vermont Yankee Interrogatory (Set No. 2) No. 44. Degrading components have not been promptly identified and replaced as stated' by facts 5, 8, 11 and 12, stated in response to Vermont Yankee Interrogatory (Set No. 2) No. 44.
- d. "By'the end of the assessment period, the licensee had developed and substantially- -
documented a formal plan."
In order to assess this finding, Vermont is awaiting response to Vermont Document Production Requests (Set No.
- 1) Nos. 14, 15, 16, 21, 22, 57, 58 and 62. A period of evaluation is necessary to determine the adequacy of any new programmatic elements and their implementation, as stated in response to Vermont Yankee Interrogatory (Set No. 2) No. 100.
4
j Vermont:further states its-disagreement with the performance category rating of maintenance-and surveillance in the referenced SALP report. Despite the weaknesses identified during the SALP-period by the Maintenance Team' Inspectors in IR 89-80, and despite Vermont' Yankee's attempt to "fix" the program "[bly-the end of the assessment' period," which is a clear admission that the program was not "all right" during the assessment period,.the SALP report incredulously assigns Vermont Yankee maintenance and surveillance with the highest rating, Category 1. Vermont agrees with recent statements by the Advisory Commission on Reactor Safeguards of December 21, 1989 (Attachment 1 to these responses):
"Even with_the best of Regional Administrators this (SALP process] strikes us as unwish -- with the worst it-could make a mockery of coherent regulation."
"Your (NRC) staff has created a process which is out of control."
" Abuses of the SALP abound, and they bring no credit to the regulatory process."
"We also believe that this is a sufficiently important problem to justify consideration of suspension of the program and issuance of no new SALP ratings until enough reform measures are instituted to lend credibility to the process."
No credibility can be given to this recent maintenance and surveillance SALP rating for Vermont Yankes.
5
e ,
J. , .
]
1 Q.3 Please identify each and every item lthat SOV contends is part.of the " current licensing' basis" for VYNPS, as that 1 term was used by SOV at page 3 of its Set 1 Responses, I that have not been available to SOY either: l a'. in the-Public: Document Room;
- b. by request through informal discovery from VYNPC; or .;
- c. through normal distribution to SOV'of
-Vermont Yankee communications with the-NRC. - ,
A.3 Vermont objects to this interrogatory on the basis 4 L that'the level of detail requested, while appropriate and required of the licensee (see Vermont Interrogatories (Set No. 1) Nos. 6 through.11), is overbroad, burdensome and completely' inappropriate to request of Vermont.
L Vermont further objects on the basis that the requested information is information which Vermont could not know, which Vermont Yankee is required to know to comply with
-10 CFR 50, Appendix B, Criterion III, " Design Control,"
and yet which Vermont Yankee apparently does not know.
Vermont-also objects to this interrogatory to the extent-that it implies Vermont had an obligation to exercise discovery through " informal discovery." Vermont further objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that whether information was available in the Public Document' Room, through informal discovery, or through a normal distribution, is irrelevant to the subject matter of this proceeding and will not lead to the discovery of relevant material.
6
i 7_
1
- j Not withstanding and without waiving these objections, Vermont states that the licensing basis upon
-which the commission found' adequate protection, in
, granting _the operating license, has not: remain fixed over the-term of the operating license. Rather, the licensing basis has continued to evolve and expand during the term' U of operation, in part because of the continuing regulatory _ activities of the commission. The origina!
licensing bases for the Vermont Yankee plant ~have not been thoroughly documented by Vermont Yankee, and changes I have not been completely tracked by Vermont Yankee.. For.
example, at a public meeting with the NRC staff on April 30, 1990, a Vermont Yankee contract employee stated _that Vermont Yankee could not determine the original design basis.for the toxic gas monitor.- Vermont Yankee has a program to reconstitute the design basis; Vermont has -
requested-information regarding this program in Vermont L Interrogatory (Set No. 1) No. 42. Vermont Yankee.must know and control the current licensing basis to comply.
with 10 CFR 50, Appendix B, Criterion III, " Design Control". Also, documentation of the current licensing basis is an important component in providing reasonable assurance of license extension aging issues as illustrated in " Nuclear Power Plant. License Renewal; Public Workshop of Technical and Policy Consideration" (54 FR 41980). Vermont has requested information 7
l
..) <
l I
concerning the current licensing basis in Vermont-Interrogatories (Set No.,1) Nos. 6 through 11.
'I
- l Q.4 Please identify each and every type and item of "information reviewed by the Maintenance Team Inspectors," as that term was used by SOV at page 4 of its Set 1 Responses, that SOV contends have not been available to SOV either:
a.. in the'Public Document Room;
- b. by request through informal discovery from VYNPC; or c.. through normal distribution to SOV of Vermont Yankee communications with the NRC..
A.4 Vermont objects to this interrogatory to the extent that it implies Vermont had an obligation to exercise discovery through " informal discovery." Vermont further objects on the basis that Vermont Yankee requests' Vermont to identify information which only Vermont Yankee knows, i.e., what material was shown to the Maintenance Team L
Inspectors. Vermont _further objects to this interrogatory on-the grounds that whether.information was available in the Public Document' Room, through informal discovery, or through a normal distribution, is irrelevant to the subject matter of this proceeding and will not lead to the discovery of relevant material.
Q.5'- Please define what SOV contends is included within the ,
I scope of the term " correct controls" as used by SOV at !
l page 7 of its Set 1 Responses, and provide all the basec for your definition.
8 l
l
_, ~ . , - --
f ,
.:, o
- Y A.5 The term, "correctJcontrols" as used in part 4 to [
Vermont's response to Vermont Yankee Interrogatory (Set q No.<1) No. 8, is a general reference to the changes necessary to correct the inadequacies in Vermont Yankee's raintenance program. A description of these changes was requested by Vermont Yankee' Interrogatory (Set No. :2) No. i
- 6. As of this date we have yet to receive response'to a >
l 1
single discovery request, and due to time spent i 1
~
responding to licenset's interrogatories and motions, our-evaluation.has not progressed beyond that described in response to Vermont Yankee Interrogatory (Set No. 2) No.
6.
-Vermont has not determined "what...is included within the scope of the term", and thus Vermont objects to this interrogatory to the extent that it' attempts to !
L :
compel Vermont to do work or take actions in preparation for this case which it has not made the decision to L
perform. Vermont further objects to'this interrogatory to the extent.that it attempts.to impose a schedule for doing such work within a relatively short discovery -
U i
( period. j p
Q.6 Please state whether the " period of time" that SOV contends, at page 7 of its Set 1 Responses, is necessary i l? to show the effectiveness of management controls is the same as the five-year period advanced by SOV in its i response to Interrogatory NO. 100 of Set 2? If not, please define the " period of time" referred to. In .
either event, please state each and every reason for the time period specified, and, for each such reason, please:
l' 9 l
.a. -State each'and every fact on which your reason'is based.
- b. Describe all of the evidence is SOV's possession or of which SoV has
-knowledge that Sov contends establishes each suchifact.
c.- For each reason, either provide the
' technical qualifications (education, employment history, licenses and' certificates, experience,.or other information that Sov contends.
establishes the qualifications of the person), of any person on whoso expertise Sov relies for the reason or state that SOV does not rely upon the expertise of any person for the reason.
A.6 Yes. - Due.to the serious nature of the inadequacies:
of Vermont Yankee's maintenance program and the magnitude of overhaul that would be necessary (were it possible) for the board to rule that such changes and enhancements provide reasonable assurance that public. health and safety are protected, a period of time would be required to evaluate the effectiveness of any new programs and c- changes. The length of this period would be determined by the time necessary to show that the maintenance program could determine and replace all components found to have aged to a point where they no longer meet safety standards. This time period must take into account the slow process by which components age. It is the expert opinion of Vermont's technical consultant that five years would represent a reasonable period of evaluation of the overhauled program. Vermont relies on the expertise of 10
Mr. H. Shannon Phillips, whose technical qualifications were identified in response to Vermont Yankee Interrogatories (Set No. 1).
Q.7 Please quantify the expected " shortage" of qualified replacement (maintenance) personnel that SOV contends at pages 6-8 of its Set 1 Responses is to be expected, and
! provide all the bases for your quantification.
A.7 The " shortage of qualified replacement" craftspersons refers to a shortage of qualifications rather than a shortage of craftspersons. The specific qualifications which will conetitute a " shortage" in the extended period are the qualifications resulting from the longevity of a stablo maintenance staff which results in supposedly adequate maintenance at the present time without a comprehensive set of documents to formalize and allow upgrading of existing practices. Vermont does not expect to attempt to quantify" future numbers of qualifiedmaintenance$raftspersons,andtotheextent that this interrogatory seeks such a quantification, Vermont objects because it attempts to compel Vermont to do work or take actions in preparation for this case which it has not made the decision to perform. Vermont does expect to show that the longevity of the present maintenance staff is high (see Vermont Interrogatories (Set No. 1) Nos. 2, 3, 4, 5, and 8) and that reasonable assurance has not been demonstrated that this longevity will continue in the extended period, given the likely 11 i
-El
attrition of present maintenance staff in the extended period.
Q.8 With respect to the assertion at page 8 of its Set 1 Responses that the maintenance program will be
" inadequate," please identify each aspect of the program that SOV contends will be inadequate, the measure or standard by which SoV contends adequacy is determined, and for each aspect all of the reasons why Sov contends that it will be inadequate.
A.8 Vermont objects to this interrogatory to the extent that it attempts to compel Vermont to do work or take actions in preparation for this case which it has not made the decision to perform. Notwithstanding and without vaiving this objection, Vermont states that program inadequacies are identified in Vermont's Response to Vermont Yankee Interrogatory (Set No. 2) No. 44. We expect the responses to Vermont's discovery, none of which have been received, will provide further information on these, and perhaps additional inadequacies. The " measure or standard" of adequacy is the reasonable assurance standard of 10 CFR 50.57.
Q.9 Please identify each and every passage of each document that Sov contends supports its assertions, at page 8 of its Set i response, that:
, a. "as the plant reaches the extended period, there will be a shortage of qualified maintenance workers;" and
- b. "without established and implemented management controls, the maintenance program will not only be less efficacious but will be inadequate."
12 q
I. '
A.9 a. None.
- b. Vermont objects to this sub-part of this interrogatory to the extent that it attempts to impose a schedule for doing such work within a relatively short discovery period. Notwithstanding and without waiving this objection, Vermont states that its knowledge to date, before receipt of any Vermont Yankee discovery response, of maintenance program inadequacy is identified in the foregoing interrogatory. Specific document passages for the facts identified in response to Vermont Yankee Interrogatory (Set No. 2) No. 44, to the extent they have been determined, are identified in Attachment 2 to these responses.
Q.10 Does SOV contend that its asserted shortage of qualified replacement maintenance personnel cannot be completely alleviated by financial or other incentives offered to such personnel? If your response is anything other than an unqualified negative, pleases
- a. State each and every fact on which your reason is based.
- b. Describe all of the evidence in Sov's possession or of which Sov has knowledge that SOV contends establishes each such fact.
- c. For each reason, either provide the technical qualifications (education, i employment history, licenses and certificates, experience, or other information that Sov contends establishes the qualifications of the person), of any person on whose expertise Sov relles for the reason or 13 I
e .
state that sov does not rely upon the expertise of any person for the reason.
A.10 Yes. Refer to the response to Interrogatory 7 above. This response is based on the fact that vermont 6
Yankee has not demonstrated there is assurance that the-shortage in qualifications upon which Vermont Yankee's :
maintenance program is based (i.e., the longevity and stability of its maintenance staff) can be solved with -
money. This response is further based on the expert opinion of Vermont's technical consultant that it will not be possible to demonstrate such assurance because:
- 1. It is likely that all nuclear plants will compete for qualified replacement maintenance craftspersons.
2 Financial inducements can have the affect of increased craftspersons movement and rotation.
- 3. Increase craftspersons movement and rotation specifichily defeats the foundation basis upon which j
J :
Vermont Yankee's maintenance program is established, L the longevity and stability of its maintenance craftspersons.
L Vermont relies on the expertise of Mr. H. Shannon Phillips, whose technical qualifications were identified l
in response to Vermont Yankee Interrogatories (Set No.
1).
Q.11 What does SOV contend will happen to the experienced maintenance workers at the "almost one-half of the 14
nuclear generating capacity" whose " current licenses" SOV asserts, at page 9 of its Set i responds "will expire" between 2010 and 20207" Please state each and every reason for your answer, and, for each such reason, please
- a. State each and every fact on which your reason is based.
- b. Describe all of the evidence in Sov's possession or of which Sov has g knowledge that Sov contends establishes each such fact.
E c. For each reason, either provide the 5 technical qualifications (education, 5 employment history, licenses and i certificates, experience, or other information that SOV contends
- establishes the qualifications of the i person), of any person on whose l expertise SOV relies for the reason or
- state that SOV does not rely upon the expertise of any person for the reason.
A.11 Vermont objects to this interrogatory to the extent that it attempts to compel Vermont to do work or take actions in preparation for this case which it has not made the decision to perform. Notwithstanding and g without waiving this objection, Vermont states that it
= has made no attempt to determine "what ... will happen" to maintenance craftspersons between 2010 and 2020, since h
it is a sufficient fact that increased rotation and movement of maintenance craftspersons specifically defeats the foundation basis upon which Vermont Yankee's maintenance program is established, i.e., the longevity and stability of its maintenance staff. Should one-half of the nuclear generating capacity expire, this increased T_ rotation and movement of craftspersons would surely 15 i i-
i 1
h occur. For this response, Vermont relies on the expert i opinion of Mr. H Shannon Phillips, whose technica]
qualifications were identified in response to Vermont Yankee Interrogatories (Set No. 1).
Q.12 Please describe in detail each of the steps taken by SOV to verify independently any of the opinions or conclusions of the author (or authors) of the work _ dated l October 9, 1989, to which SOV refers in sub-paragraph "c." of its Contention 7, as asserted in its response to ;
Interrogatory No. 38 of Set 2, including but not limited to (i) the identity and qualifications of the persons l taking the steps, (ii) the identify of all persons 1 interviewed or queried, (iii) the identity of all documents reviewed; (iv) a description of all data j collected and analyzed and a description of the results 1 of the analysis, and (v) all other results of the steps. H l
A.12 The following actions were taken: Under the direction and supervision of Mr. William Sherman, Ms.
Peggy Leene, a secretary at the Vermont Department of Public Service, contacted Ms. Margaret Ryan, Chief Editor of Nucleonics Week, and author of " Outlook on Skilled Personnel." Ms. Ryan identified as the bases for her article, reports from the Labor and Policies Studies i Program, Oak Ridge Associated Universities, Oak Ridge,
, Tennessee, and from the Board on Chemical Sciences and 1
Technology, Commission of Physical Sciences, Mathematics and Resources, National Research Council, Washington, D.C. Under the direction and supervision of Mr. Sherman, Ms. Leene contacted these organizations which identified T
and subsequently provided the following reports:
16
" Energy-Related Scientists and Engineers, 1988- .
1994," December 1989, Oak Ridge Associated '
Universities.
" Nuclear-Related Science and Engineering Employment Increased 25 percent During 1980's," DOE /ER-0373, Manpower Assessment Brief Number 7, June 1988, Oak Ridge Associated Universities.
" Nuclear Engineering Enrollments and Degrees for Both Undergraduates and Master's Continue to ,
Decrease," DOE /ER-0373-1, Manpower Assessment Brief Number 8, March 1989, Oak Ridge Associated Universities. .
" Enrollments Decreased in Health Physics / Radiation Protection Programs in 1988," DOE /ER, Manpower Assessment Brief, June 1989, Oak Ridge Associated i Universities. ,
" Training Requirements for Chemists in Nuclear Medicine, Nuclear Industry, and RelateA Areas,"
National Research Council, National Academy Press, 1988.
As of this date, these documents have not been reviewed or analyzed, and no decision to schedule such review and analysis has been made. Mr. Sherman's qualifications have been provided in response to Vermont Yankee's First Set of Interrogatories.
s Q.13 For each and every assertion made by SOV in his (sic) Set 1 Responses at Interrogatory No. 10.b, pages 10-12, please:
- a. State each and every fact on which your reason is based.
- b. Describe all of the evidence in SOV's possession or of which SOV has knowledge that SOV contends establishes each such fact.
17
l
- c. For each reason, either provide the technical qualifications (education, employment history, licenses and certificates, experience, or'other information that SOV contends l
establishes the qualifications of the person), of any person on whose expertise SOV relies for the assertion or state that SOV does not rely upon the expertise of any person for the assertion.
A.13 Vermont objects to this interrogatory because it i 3-attempts to compel Vermont to do work or take actions in preparation for this case which it has not made the decision to perform. If Vermont Yankee wishes to argue in this proceeding that it can lure maintenance craftspersons from other industries and train them effectively, it is incumbent on Vermont Yankee, and not Vermont, to develop and present evidence on this point.
Q.14 please describe in detail what level of awareness SOV contends, at page 10-11 of its Set 1 Responses, that
" nuclear maintenance personnel" must have of "the interrelationships between ECCS and other safety systems." please also:
- a. State each and every fact on which your reason is based.
- b. Describe all of the evidence in SOV's i possession or of which SOV has knowledge that Sov contends establishes samh such fact.
- c. Provide either the technical qualifications (education, employment history, licenses and certificates, ey.perience , or other information that SOV contends establishes the -
qualifications of the person), of any person on whose expertise SOV relies for the answer or state that SOV does 18 .
.l c I L l not rely upon the expertise of any [
person for the answer.
A.14 Vermont objects to this interrogatory on the same grounds as stated in response to the foregoing !
interrogatory. To the extent that this interrogatory seeks Vermont to quantify specifically the awareness that a maintenance craftsperson must have, without' adequate procedural guidance, of "(t]he interrelationships between
! ECCS and other safety systems with the power producing systems of the plant," Vermont objects further on the basis that it would be unduly burdensome. Such quantification would amount to developing the
" precautions" sections of procedures which Vermont Yankee is apparently lacking.
Notwithstanding and without waiving these objections, Vermont states that nuclear maintenance craftspersons should be trained as outlined in INPO 86-018, " Guidelines for Training and Qualification of Maintenance Personnel", or receive the equivalent training. The required training and qualification should provide the required knowledge and skills to perform maintenance on all safety related systems, structures, and components. Such training not only should provide maintenance craftspersons an awareness of interrelation--
ships between ECCS and other safety systems but also between nonsafety systems that can affect safety systems.
INPO 86-018 states that maintenance craftspersons should 19
have knowledge oft site or plant layout; impact of ;
maintenance on ECCS Components, knowledge of plant I systems. including alarm types, system block diagrams, importance to plant operations / safety, effect of isola-tion system components on operations and interrelation- ,
ships with other plant systems; knowledge of control ,
logic and diagrams, normal / abnormal performance and
{
probable cause of abnormal indication; and any spe-cialized skills needed. l The above answer should not be considered a complete listing of all guidance but gives examples of knowledge and skills that maintenance craftspersons should have to attain the minimum awareness of maintenance activities ,
performed on safety or nonsafety systems that may r adversely effect ECCS systems and reduce the margin of plant safety to unacceptable levels. For this response, Vermont relies on the expert opinion of its technical consultant, Mr. H. Shannon Phillips, whose technical
- qualifications were identified in response to Vermont Yankee Interrogatories (Set No. 1).
Q.15 Please describe in detail-what level of awareness SOV contends, at page 11 of its Set i Responses, that
" nuclear maintenance personnel" must have of " require-ments, commitments and regulations." Please also:
- a. State each and every fact on which your reason is based.
20
- )
i i
- b. Describe all of the evidence in SOV's s, possession or of which Sov has ;
knowledge that SOV contends establishes ,
each such fact. *
- c. Provide either the technical ,
qualifications (education, employment :
history, licenses and certificates, experience, or other information that ,
SOV contends establishes the '
qualifications of the person), of any ,
person on whoso expertise SOV relies a for the reason or state that SOV does not rely upon the expertise of any per-son for the answer.
A.15 Vermont objects to this interrogatory on the same grounds as stated in response to Interrogatory No. 13.
To the extent that this interrogatory seeks Vermont to quantify specifically the awareness that a maintenance I
craftsperson must have, without adequate procedural guidance, of " requirements, commitments and regulations" Vermont objects further on the basis that it would be i unduly burdensome. Such quantification would amount to ,
developing the " precautions" sections of procedures which
[ Vermont Yankee is apparently lacking. Notwithstanding i
and without waiving these objections, Vermont states that ,
the Vermont Yankee plant is a complicated facility con-
- sisting of numerous systems and controlled by rigorous 1 ,
j safety requirements, and presenting the possibility of accidents causing radiological effects upon local land l and population. As such, Vermont Yankee is more compli-cated than a coal- or oil-fired plant, or other industrial facility (the subject of Vermont Yankee Inter-l i
21
i rogatory (Set No.1) No.10, sub-part b), and the conse- +
quence of maintenance error is more serious. The main-tenance craftspersons (who would perform maintenance at [
Vermont Yankee without adequate written procedures) must ,
be aware of the requirements, commitments and regula- l tiens, in 'ofder to be able to perform maintenance on i systems without vjolating safety requirements, without !
i endangering public health and safety, and without chal-lenging safety systems. For this response, Vermont relies on the expert opinion of its technical consultant, Mr. H. Shannon Phillips, whose technical qualifications were identified in response to Vermont Yankee i
Interrogatories (Set No. 1). !
Q.16 Does SOV contend, in sub-paragraph "g" of'its contention
, 7 or otherwise, that performance data is not tracked and l analyzed? If your answer is anything other than an '
l unqualified negative, please state all the reasons why '
SOV so contends, and identify every fact and document l Which SOV asserts supports that contention.
A.16 No.
Q.17 Does Sov contend, in sub-paragraph "g" of its contention l
7 or otherwise, that performance data is not reported to the Maintenance Supervisor? If your answer is anything other than an unqualified negative, please state all the reasons why SOV so contends, and identify every fact and document which Sov asserts supports that contention, i A.17 No, i
Q.18 Does SOV contend, in sub-paragraph "g" of its Contention '
7 of otherwise, that trending analysis is not reported to 22
l 4 .
i plant and corporate management? If your answer is anyth- !
ing other than an unqualified negative, please state all the reasons why SOV so contends, and identify every fact and document which SOV asserts supports that contention.
A.18 According to IR 89-80 at page 12, performance data l "is not formally documented and there is no established 3 mechanism ... to disseminate the information to higher 'l management or to pursue an issue." Vermont has requested trend analysis information in Document Production Re- ;
quests (Set No. 1) Nos. 17, 32, 33, 68, 96 and 115,1from which the degree of reporting to plant and corporate management can be determined. ;
I Q.19 .Does Sov contend, in sub-paragraph "g" of its contention 7 or otherwise, that tracking and analysis of performance data has never led to equipment replacement? If your ,
answer is,anything other than an unqualified negative, please state all the reasons why Sov so contends, and !
identify every fact and document which SoV asserts sup-ports that contention.
A.19 No.
Q.20 please describe in detail how high in the Vermont Yankee organization SoV contends that trending analysis should -
be reported, and o
! a. State each and every fact on which your
- reason is based.
- b. Describe all cf the evidence in SOV's possession or of which SOV has knowledge that SOV contends establishes each such fact.
- c. For each reason, either provide the technical qualifications (education, employment history, licenses and cer-tificates, experience, or other infor- ,
mation that SnV contends establishes 23 l
l i.
b
Q r . .
the qualifications of the person), of any person on whose expertise SOV relies for the reason or state that SOV does not rely upon the expertise of any person for the' reason.
}; A.20 Corporate management's interface with nuclear power stations is described in INPO 87-030, " Performance Objectives and Criteria for Corporate Evaluations". This document contains forty pages of guidance concerning objectives and criteria for Corporate evaluations.
t Section 1.2, " Management Involvement and Commitment", and Section 2.7 indicate that trend analyses must be reported to the highest level of Vermont Yankee's corporate management. Criterion II of 10 CFR 50, Appendix B, requires management to regularly review the status and adequacy of the quality assurance program (which includes I
maintenance) and criterion XVI of 10 CFR 50, Appendix B, requires that failures, deficiencies, malfunctions, deviation, defective material and equipment, and non-conformance be promptly identified and corrected. Where significant conditions adverse to quality exist, the cause of the condition must be determined and corrective action must be taken to preclude repetition. In order to determine if repetition has been precluded, trending must be accomplished and reported to the appropriate levels of management.
The highest levels of corporate management must be furnished trends found in the program regularly as 24 ,
i
_ _ _ _ - _ _ - _ _ _ _ - . . _A
required by Critorion II of 10 CFR 50, Appendix B.
However, deficient trends that immediately threaten the i health and safety of the public should be immediately reported, in order to make the reports to highest management, middle management must be continuously ;
advised of potential or actual adverse trends. .;
The trending program should be established at a sufficiently high level of organization to insure that '
the trending organization interface with middle managers '
is effective. Trending must also be free of cost and schedule pressures because Criterion II of 10 CFR 50, Appendix B, requires sufficient authority and organiza-tional freedom to identify quality problems.
For this response, Vermont further relies on the expert' opinion of its technical consultant, Mr. H. Shan-non Phillips, whose technical qualifications were iden- '
tified in response to Vermont Yankee Interrogatories (Set No 1). '
I Q.21 Please identify each and every type and item of "additio-i nal, related information" that SOV contends, at page 14 l
of its Set 1 Responses, it needs to complete its "inve-stigation," that have not been available to SOV either:
- a. in the Public Document Room;
- b. by request through informal discovery from VYNPC; or
25
i
. c-l A.21 Vermont objects to this interrogatory to the extent that it implies vermont had an obligation to. exercise I discovery through " informal discovery." Vermont further j e objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that whether i l
l information was available in the Public Document Room, through-informal discovery, or through a normal distribution, is irrelevant to the subject matter of this ;
proceeding and will not lead to the discovery of relevant material. Notwithstanding and without waiving these objections, Vermont states that it has not determined "each and every type and item" of additional information.
The additional information determined to date is requested in Vermont Document Production Requests (Set No. 1) Nos. 17, 32, 33, 68 and 115.
Q.22 Please identify every passage of every "INPO report" (regardless of whether or not SOV had the report in its possession when it submitted its contention 7) that SOV contends is meant to by referenced by the allegations contained in sub-paragraph "m" of SOV's Contention 7. !
A.22 The reference to "INPO reports" in sub-part m of ,
contention 7 was not meant to refer to specific passages of INPO reports but rather as a general reference.
Vermont hopes to be able to identify specific passages after review of information received in response to Vermont Document Production Requests (Set No. 1) No. 52.
Q.23 Please identify each and every type and item of "additio- .
nal evidence other than BVY 89-69," as that term is used 26 L ,
i
o .
by SOV at page 17 of its Set 1 Responses, that have not l been available to SOV either: '
- a. in the Public Document Room; [
- b. by request through informal discovery from VYNPCt or I
A.23 Vermont objects to this interrogatory to the extent f that it implies Vermont had an obligation to exercise discovery through " informal discovery." Vermont further ,
objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that whether information was available in the Public Document Room, through informal discovery, or through a normal distribution, is irrelevant to the subject matter of this proceeding and will not lead to the discovery of-relevant material. Notwithstanding and without waiving these objections, Vermont states that it has not determined "each and every type and item" of additional evidence.
The additional information determined to date is requested in Vermont Document Production Requests (Set No. 1) Nos. 71 through 84, 91 through 93, and 106 through 108.
27
^
.,o
- 't!<
w ..
AFFIDAVIT STATE OF VERMONT COUNTY OF WASHINGTON, SS.
WILLIAM K. SHERRAN, being duly sworn, states that the foregoing answers are true and correct to the best of my knowledge.
Dated at Montpelier, Vermont, this 17th day of May, 1990.
WILLIAM K. SHERMAN l
Subscribed and sworn to before me this 17th day of May, ,
1990.
dt1An L \44(tary Public My CommissPion Expires: 2/10/91 l
l As-to Objections:
V "m; A K W Janson Special Assistant Attorney General ;
b
l[037h RELATED CORRESPONDENCE c(
DOCKLIED l UNITED STATES OF AMERICA USNhC
' NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION i before the !
ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD '90 MY 21 A9:54 In the Matter of VERMONT YANKEE NUCLEAR )
(fck1bNNif[
Docket No. 50-271AOLA-4 POWER CORPORATION ) (Operating License
) Extension)
(Vermont Yankee Nuclear ) ,
Power Station) ) !
)
i CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on May 17, 1990, I made service of
" Responses to Interrogatories by State of Vermont to the Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corporation (Set No. 3)" in accordance with rules of the Commission by mailing a copy thereof postage prepaid ,
to the following:
Administrative Judge Administrative Judge Robert M. Lazo, Chairman Jerry Harbour "
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Atomic Safety and Licensing ,
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Board '
Washington, DC 20555 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory +
Commission -
Washington, DC 20555 Administrative Judge Ann P. Hodgdon, Esq.
Frederick J. Shon Patricia A. Jehle, Esq.
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Office of the General Counsel U.S. Nucleer Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory -
Washington, DC 20555 Commission ,
Washington, DC 20555 R. K. Gad, III, Esq. Anthony Z. Roisman, Esq.
Ropes & Gray Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & ,
One International Place Toll Boston, MA 02110 Suite 600 1401 New York Avenue, N.W.
Adjudicatory File Washington, D.C. 20005 Atomic Safety and Licensing '
Board Panel U.S.N.R.C.
Washington, DC 20555
[ [
Kurt Janson U
['/)L6 .
special Assistant Dated: @ [ , /T C pe
g 98g ATTACHMENT 1 (Rasponsos to Vermont Yankss Set. No. 3)~
k UNITSD STATsa NUCt I AR REGULATORY COMMittlON ADVISORY coMMITTRE ON AeACTOR sAFeoVARD4 W&antace708f. o. L tense F Detteber 21,1989 i
The Honerable Kenneth M. Carr !
Chainnan U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Ccmission Washington, D.C. 20558 i
Dear chairman carr:
$UBJECT: C0HERENCE IN THE REGULATORY PROCE35 ,
t In our last report to you en this subject, dated November 24, 1989 'we i
listed a number of problems, but deferred any recoseendations until we
. had had a chance to speak to the EDO. This occurred so late in cur December meeting that it was impossible' to prepare a report on this important subject with the care that it deserves. We therefore beg your indulgence while we defer still another mer.th. '
Monetheless, we have been briefed at this meeting en ene of the increar- '
ingly important clements of the procecs.-the SALP ratings and their use
--and believe it appropriate to single out the subject for individual treata nt. We know ycu are aware of some of the problems of external +
misuse ef the of the rGings ratings; lves, from the viewpointwe themse of coherence wish to addresi of the regulatery process.
The SALP ratings are extremely important to the licensee, for both econcotic and other ressenst it is therefore essential that the process through which they.are determined be as objective and credible as it is possible to aske it. We recognia's that there is not available a set of 4
fully objective perfannance indicaters and that any rating system must therefore have an alemnt of subjectivity. It is then doubly important '
I .that the precedures incorporate a set of credible checks and balances to
'4
.. minimize the effect of the personal predilecticns of the board mesters. -
Instead we learned from this briefing that the process is elmost en-tirely (we were teld 805) in the hands of the Regional Administrator, who net only appoints most of the board from among his own personnel, but is even free to reject an SALP rating he doesn't like, and reconsti-tute the board as he wishes. The rating therefore provides ,still another weapon for the Administrator to enforce his personal views -
effectively free cf restraint. There is no appeal precedure. Even with the best of Regional Administraters this strikes us as unwise..with the -
worst it could make a meckery of coherent regulation, d
,,,,__...,c~
[
The Honorable Xenneth M. Carr December 21, 1989 During our briefing, we were variously told that the purpose of an $ Alp rating is to advise the Regieaal Aaministrator (though he signs it), and
. then to help him advise the licensee. At the end it wasn't clear which.
We were also told that a licensee sust exhibit a steady improvement to kerep his 5 ALP rating constant, then that he needn't, and finally that he did. If true, that is not consistent regulation. Improvenient tow:rd what ene? You may wish to read the transcript of cur meeting.
We could continue, but the message is that your staff has created a 1rocess which is cut of centrol. if ind6ed all the questions we asked save reasonable answers, they were not knewn to the responsible staff elements, even during a prepared briefing devoted to the subject.
On this isolated example of intcherence, we think you should r.ake a clear statement of the purpose of SALF ratings, insist that your staff implement that purpose and no other, insist that the staff not use the ratings as wespens to enforce cbedience to idiosyncratic policies that are not ycurs, greatly dilute the Regicnal autarchy in the process, and institute a workable set of checks and balsecas. Abuses of SALP abounc, and they bring no credit to the regulatery process.
We also believe that this is a sufficiently important problem to justify considerstien of suspensten of the pregram and issuance of no new $ ALP ratings until encugh reform measures are instituted te lend credibility to the process.
Sincerely,
_ ,/.$ N[Y"$-w Catlyle Michelsen Acting Chairman
. . . . ~.. - -
t i
i I
ATTACEMENT.2 !
(RESPOMSES TO YERMONT Y& MERE INTERROGATORIES SET MO. 31 Document Passaaez for Facts in Response to Vermont Yankee Interroaatory (Set No. 21 No. 44 Fact 1 - ;
" Currently, the licensee's maintenance program is based I more on the stability of maintenance staff, their skill in their trades and professions, and their knowledge of ,
plant system characteristics that come with long-term ,
experience, than of formally and clearly established '
management controls." IR 89-80 at page 4
"[G)iven the licensee's. strong dependence on the current staff's skill and knowledge, near term formalization of program requirements to set the stage i for continued good performance in the face of project <ad future staff turnover would appear to be very prudent. .
The inspectors considered this one issue to be the '
licensee's greatest liability in sustaining future good ;
performance." IR 89-80, at page 25 t
"Too much reliance on worker skills," bullet 6 on SSF1 General Conclusions, Westec SSFI Summary. ;
Fact 2 - -
"The maintenance program as currently implemented has not been comprehensively reviewed in a structured manner since its inception at plant start-up." IR 89-80 at page 13 ,
"VY plant management should review the industry &
practice in maintenance planning to determine if the industry trend in establishing formal maintenance planning groups would aid in increasing productivity in the maintenance area." LRS Report, #3-88, at page 10 "A long range project should be initiated to upgrade the formality of the maintenance activities through '
improved and modernized programs." LRS Report, #2-89, at page 3
" Reluctant to modify maintenance programs to meet industry standards," bullet 7 on SSFI General Conclusions, Westec SSFI Summary.
1
._m_ ,,,; -
. =
Fact 3 -
" Summary of Weaknesses ... Luck of effective policy and procedures for controlling and updating manufacturer technical manuals." IR 89-80 at Appendix 3
" Lack of effective policy and procedures for controlling and updating manufacturer technical manuals is a weakness in the current maintenance program as implemented." IR 89-80 at page 4
" leaves VY vulnerable to several things, such as ...
incidents involving vendor data shortcomings, procedural inadequacies, or even human error." LRS Report, #2-89, at pages 2-3 "PM program should encompass more vendor guidance,"
bullet 4, SSFI General Conclusions, Westec SSFI Summary.
Fact 4 -
"This [ performance data) is not formally documented and there is not an established mechanism...to disseminate the information to higher management or to pursue an issue, as in the case of an adverse trend ... there was no formal plan available indicating the existence of a long term program to reverse the trend. Also, there was no documented evidence that these analyses had been communicated to plant or corporate higher management for their review and evaluation." IR 89-80 at page 12 Fact 5 -
"The inspectors noted that in many cases, the trend graph showed a rise towards the acceptance limit ... I but that there was no formal plan available indicating the existence of a longterm program to reverse the trend." IR 89-80 at page 12 Fact 6 -
"The licensee has a program to review the appropriateness and technical adequacy of completed maintenance activities. However, these reviews are not being completed in a timely fashion. There is a large backlog of completed Maintenance Requests awaiting such review." IR 89-80 at page 12 '
2 4
'1-'*' -' -+' y - -
e- _ . - - .: -
=
.. m._,._
t' l L
c... o I
" Presently there is backlog of data on which this (trend) analysis has to be performed. The engineer in charge told the inspectors that in the future they intend to put more resources in this area to reduce the backlog." IR 89-80 at page 30 4 "The backlog of maintenance requests (MR's) is large and there is'no visible push to rectify the situation." <
LRS Report #3-88 at page 7
" Formal engineering justifications not on file," bullet 5, SSFI General Conclusions, Westec SSFI Summary.
Fact 7 - l "Non-performance of vendor recommended preventive maintenance," Westec Finding VY-WCS-3, Westec SSFI 4 Summary.
I
" Lack of testing of' check valves in the diesel generator air start system," Westec Finding VY-WRB-4, Westec SSFI Summary.
" Lack of adequate logic testing of the HPCI System," t Westec Finding VY-WRB-5, Westec SSFI Summary.
"More than half the environmentally qualified i limitorque motor operator valves have not had grease ,
changeout or spring pack inspection since the original -
installation," Westec Finding VY-WCS-7, Westec SSFI +
Summary.
LERs 88-03, 88-13, 88-14, 89-10, 89-23 and 89-24; documents in their entirety.
Fact 8 -
BVY 89-69, " Vermont Yankee Response to NRC Request for Information Regarding Condition of Drywell Paint,"
Section II, Background, at pages 2 and 3.
LERs 89-17, document in its entirety.
Fact 9 -
" Heating lamps installed by maintenance request to keep HPCI turbine bearing housing warm may not be seismically anchored or qualified to withstand a 3
r ,
!1 ,
I o.. e i
t seismic disturbance," Westec Finding VY-SMK-6, Westec ,
SSFI Summary. ;
l
" Diesel Generator minimum lube oil pressure requirement i of 20 psig is set below manufacturers recommended minimum pressure of 26 psig," Westec Finding VY-WCS-5, i Westec SSFI Summary. ]
"The current HPCI Lube oil filter high DP setpoint is set above the filter internal bypass fully open ,
position," Westec Finding VY-WCS-4, Westec SSFI i Summary, i
" Motor operated valve RHR-V10-65A and -65B valve actuation time (and surveillance test acceptance ,
criteria) may not be adequate to assure its full stroke l open position can be reached," Westec Finding VY-WRB- j 7, Westec SSFI Summary. ]
l
" Circuit Breaker and relay setpoint selection and )
control has not been established," Westec Finding VY- !
WGD-2, Westec SSFI Sumscry. l l Fact 10 -
" Vermont Yankee does not have a single Master Equipment List that meets the generally accepted industry l standard (i.e. , INPO) for such lists." IR 89-80 at j page 22 .
"The licensee does not have ... an integrated Master p Equipment List. (This is) considered (a) weakness () in L their maintenance program." IR 89-80 at page 25 i "A long range project should be initiated to upgrade the formality of the maintenance activities through improved and modernized programs. High on the list of s items to be pursued are the Master Equipment List and Vendor-Manual updates." LRS Report #2-89 at page 3 L
Fact 11 -
"The inspectors noted that in many cases, the trend graph showed a rise towards the acceptance limit (DG-l 1-1B; SW pumps; SW system as a whole; FPFD system; RWCU L system; core spray system), but that there was no -
L formal plan available indicating the existence of a longterm program to reverse the trend." IR 89-80 at page 12 4
l .t
_.m_
m_ ..- - - - _ . -
-_p
- o..o-
" Generally, the operators do not feel that Vermont Yankee pays sufficient heed to their desires for hardware repair and replacement." LRS Report-#3-88 at page 7 Fact 12 -
"During a plant tour, the inspectors noted that paint was peeling from large areas of the upper drywell, with j some areas exceeding a foot in diameter...the licensee identified that this paint peeling issue had been identified previously ... the inspectors raised concern that the loose paint may build up fast enough during the 18 month operating cycle, and that the paint peeling may eventually'get to the suction of the ECCS pumps to cause clogging problems." IR 89-80 at page 15 BVY 89-69, in its entirety.
LERs 89-07, 87-07, 85-07, 84-11, 89-03, 89-04, 89-19, and 89-21; documents in their entirety.
Fact 13 -
"PM Program is weak," bullet 1, SSFI General Conclusions, Westec SSFI Summary.
" Maintenance activities heavily oriented to corrective maintenance," bullet 2, SSFI General Conclusions, Westec SSFI Summary.
L "Need more proactive posture," bullet 3, SSFI General Conclusions, Westec SSFI Summary.
"PM program should encoEpass more vendor guidance,"
bullet 4, SSFI General Conclusions, Westec SSFI Summary.
i l
l i
5 (L .