ML20043C691
| ML20043C691 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Vermont Yankee File:NorthStar Vermont Yankee icon.png |
| Issue date: | 05/30/1990 |
| From: | Gad R ROPES & GRAY, VERMONT YANKEE NUCLEAR POWER CORP. |
| To: | VERMONT, STATE OF |
| References | |
| CON-#290-10419 OLA-4, NUDOCS 9006060065 | |
| Download: ML20043C691 (158) | |
Text
p419 RELATED CORRESPONDENCE ru.d: M.y so,1990 1.XrE;ED UNITED STATES OF AMERICA V5Nhc NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 110 JLN -1 P4 :11 -
before the ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD
'Utti Of SECRf it.RY t UCKIlmG A SiPVICE fiRANCH
)
In the Matter of
)
)
Docket No. 50 271-OLA-4 VERMONT YANKEE NtTCLEAR ) (Construction Period POWER CORPORATION
)
Recapture)
)
(Vermont Yankee Nuclear
)
Power Station)
)
)
ANSWERS OF YERMONT YANKEE NUCLEAR POWER CORPORATIONJ TO INTERROGATORIES PROPOUNDED BY THE STATE OF YERMONT Pursuant to 10 C.F.R. i 2.740b, Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corpora-tion hereby responds to the interrogatories propounded to it by the State of Vermont. (By stipulation, the time within which these responses were due was enlarge to May 30,1990.)
General Response Regarding Documents:. In each case in which a,
document is identified hereinafter to be available, the documents will be produced for inspection and copying at either (i) the offices of-Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corporation, in Brattleboro,(ii) the Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station in Vernon or (iii) Nuclear Services Division, Yankee Atomic Electric Company, Bolton, Massachusetts (depending on document location) on a date and time to be agreed upon by counsel.
Interrogatory No.1, interrogatory:
- 1. Please identify all persons who participated in the preparation of answers to these interrogatories and production requests:
- a. Describe in detail the specific portions of cach response to which each person contributed.
- b. Provide the most current resum6 available for each identified -
individual.
l s
c.
Describe the qualifications of each identified individust, including training and papers published.
i
Response
The persons who participated in the preparation of these answers to inter-rogatories, exclusive of counsel, are as follows:
Orgamira-Indl6 dual tion Interrogatories Donald A. Reid VYNPC All -
Francis J. Helin VYNPC All.
H. Michael Metell VYNPC 42,60 Robert E. Sojka VYNPC 17,18,114 Kathy M. Casey VYNPC l15 Robert J. Waneryk VYNPC 2,3,8,16,50,51,52,53,54,i16, i17,122 Terry A. Watson VYNPC 55,56,122 Richard P. Lopriore VYNPC 57,69,123 David L. Phillips YYNPC
$7, 59, 61, 62, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68 i.I Gary Cappuccio VYNPC 6, 7 Dennis C. Girroir VYNPC 8,9,32,33,119 James M. DeVincentis VYNPC 9,19.118 Mark Stello VYNPC 32,33,i19 Michael V. Ball VYNPC 21 Patrick B. Corbett VYNPC 22,23,24,25,99,100,101 Richard G. Mossey VYNPC 71 l
Kevin H. Bronson VYNPC 72,73 Randall W. Spinney VYNPC 78
. l l
l l
l
i James C. Kinsey VYNPC 44 Charles Rice LRS 102,103,104 l
R. L, Smith YNSD 10, 11, 20, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 36, 37,38,39,40,41,109 W. K. Peterson YNSD 10,11,16,25,39,40 P. J. Donnelly YNSD 15,16,121 M. P. Sani ak YNSD 22,23,25,47,48 R. E. Swenson YNSD 24,25,41,43,80,81,82,83,84, 85,86,87,88,89,90,91,92,93 E. J. Betti YNSD 25,43,70 K. J. Durns YNSD 26 L. A. Tremblay YNSD 74,75,76,77,78,79,94,95,96, 97, 98,110, Ill,112 It should be understood, however, that drafts of answers were reviewed by,
~ i and information used in preparing answers was assembled by, persons not identified in the foregoing list.
a.
See above table.
- b. Resumes are available for inspection, r
- c. This information is contained in the resumis.
Interrogatory No. 2.
Interrogatory.'
- 2. Identify each and every supervisor who has been responsible for maintenance or surveillance activities at the Vermont Yankee plant at any time since January 1,1988, As to each such person, provide the following information:
a.
What was his or her precise responsibility or responsibilities for maintenance and/or surveillance at the Vermont Yankee plant?
- b. Identify'ench and every structure, system and component upon which he or she supervised maintenance or surveillance work.
Y e
- c. Describe in detail the precise instructions he or she received in the performance of his or her maintenance tasks.
- d. ' Describe in detail the manner in which he or she received instructions.
l
- 1) Who provided the instruction?
l
- 2) In what form was it provided?
- 3) Identify all documentation that exists to verify that the r
instructions were provided and received.
e.
Identify his or her dates of employment by Vermont Yankee, f.
Describe any changes in responsibilities while employed with Vermont Yankee, and identify the effective dates of these l-changes.
i g.
For each person identified, state his or her qualifications and training, and provide the most current resumt available.
Response
A list of individuals having supervisory responsibility for maintenance and surveillance activities since 1/1/88 is provided on Attachment 2-1 to these
- answers,
- n. The responsibilities of these individuals are described in written job descriptions maintained by the personnel department, which job.
descriptions are available for inspection,
- b. It is reasonable to expect that these individuals could have supervised work in any area of the plant to which they were assigned, indicated by their responsibilities and job descriptions provided in sesponse to part a. in addition, our maintenance and surveillance records, such as maintenance request sign offs (AP 0021), surveillance sheet sign offs and tag out request sheets (AP-0140) indicate the supervisor responsible for the accomplishment of the various maintenance and -
surveillance activities and are available for inspection, I
- c. The specific instructions that control the accomplishment of main-l tenance and surveillance activities at Vermont Yankee can be found in surveillance and maintenance procedures. These procedures are identified in the response to Interrogatory No.14. Additionally these personnel are provided formalized training in the accomplishment of various specific maintenance tasks from the training department and 4
t
experienced job incumbents or, at times, training is provide direct.
ly from the vendor for certain components. Additionally training.'s provided in generic topics such as ? troubleshooting," reading of drawings, and the like.
Additional instruction may be provided by the Department Super-
{
visor (s) or other management, as appropriate. The level of detail of '
any additional instruction provided by the department supervisor (s) depends on the nature of the activity, and the experience level of the l
personnel involved. In most cases this type of instruction is verbal and therefore the precise details of such instruction is not docu-l mented. in general the type of instruction given to supervisors deals' with priorities, availability of resources, special operational con.
{
(
siderations, etc.
t
- d. Instructions given to maintenance and surveillance supervisors are for 3
the most part contained in' procedures. Additional instruction is l
provided as described above with respect to sub-part c.
i
- 1) The procedures that control maintenance and surveillance activities are consideied ' Management Directives" and as such are -
reviewed and approved by management. Also as stated in res-ponse to part c., instruction can be provided' by the Training Department staff, more experienced workers, or directly from i
vendors.
Generally any additional direction is provided through the line management organization. However, specific instructions can come from other parts of the organization as is indicated by the department procedures. An example is the direction from a shift supervisor, or Health Physics Technician regarding plant condi-tions.
1
- 2) This instruction can be either formal or informal and occur in the claastoom, shop, or the plant. However, the actual accom-plishment of any maintenance or surveillance tasks is governed by the appropriate procedure.
- 3) The verification that these instructions were received is docu.
mented in job order files, Maintenance Request sign-offs, and in
~;
satisfactory post-maintenance and operational testing. These records are available for inspection.
f
?
1
f Procedures govern the accomplishment of all tasks, and ensure that any work done is done in accordance with approved manage-ment directives as indicated by AP 0831
- plant procedures *,
Copies of procedures which provide instructions to supervisors are available on site for inspection. Any instructor guide (IG)is also available for inspection.
e.
This information is provided in Attachment 2 1.
I f.
See Attachment :-l.
I g.
The entry level qualifications are contained in the job descriptions mentioned in 2a., above. Training is provided in accordance with i
the INPO accredited training program and copies of training records are available in our Training Dept. Copies of resumes are available in our personnel department.
l Interrogatory No. 3, interrogatory:
- 3. Identify each and every Vermont Yankee employee who has been responsible for or has performed maintenance or surveillance activities at the Vermont Yankee plant at any time since January
+
1,1988. As to each such person, provide the following informa-tion:
I r
- a. What was his or her precise responsibility or responsibilities for maintenance and/or surveillance at the Vermont Yankee plant?
- b. Identify each and every structure, system and component upon which he or she performed maintenance or surveillance work, i
t
- c. Describe in detail the precise instructions he or she received l[
in the performance of his or her maintenance tasks.
'l
- d. Describe in detail the manner in which he or she received instructions.-
- 1) Whc provided the instruction?
- 2) In what form was it provided?
- 3) Identify all documentation that exists to verify that the i
instructions were provided and received, i
I e.
Identify his or her dates of employment by Vermont Yankee.
I t,
'f f
i f.
Describe any changes in responsibilities while employed with Vermont Yankee, and identify the effective dates of these changes.
g.
For each person identified, state his or her qualifications and training, and provide the most current resume available.
Rssionse:
A listing of all Vermont Yankee employees having responsibility for, or who have performed maintenance and surveillance activities since 1/1/88 is provided on Attachment 3-1 to these answers.
a.
The responsibilities of these individuals is described in written job descriptions, which are available for inspection.
- b. It would be extremely time consuming (and perhaps impossible) to l
identify each and every structure, system or component on which any particular individual performed maintenance or surveillance work, since our records are not maintained in that fashion. It is reasonable to expect, however, that they could have performed work in any area -
they were assigned.
in the I&C Department, personnel initial maintenance requests for all work for which they were a part of the -
work party,
- c. See response to 2(c), above regarding procedural compliance, training l
and additional instructions.
The level of detail of additionalinstruction depends on the nature of the activity, and the experience level of the person who will be -
performing it. This information is typically discussed and therefore the precise details of such instruction are cot retained. In general, the discussion would include items such as: safety, parts availability, ALARA, plant conditions, and the like.
- d. See response to question 2.d.
- e. This information is provided in Attachment 3-1.
f.
Provided in Attachment 3-1.
g.
Resumds, as such, do not exist for the personnel in question (at least in the Company's records).
7 n
l r
. Interrogatory No. 4.
interrogatory; i
4.
Identify each and every contract employee who has been responsible for or has performed maintenance or surveillance activities at the Vermont Yankee plant at any time since January 1,1988. As to each such person, provide the following informa.
i tion:
l r
a.
What was his or her precise responsibility or responsibilities j:
for maintenance and/or surveillance while under contract and.-
l working at Vermont Yankee?
8
- b. Identify each and every structure, system and component upon which he or she performed maintenance or surveillance work.
- c. Describe in detail the precise instructions he or she received in the performance of his or her maintenance tasks.
- d. Describe in detail the manner in which he or she received instructions, j
- 1) Who provided the instruction?
- 2) In what form was it provided?
- 3) Identify all documentation that exists to verify that the
}
instructions were provided and received.
i
- e. Identify his or her dates of contract employment by Vermont l
Yankee.
l
- f. Describe any changes in responsibilities while under contract l
to Vermont Yankee, and identify the effective dates of these l
changes.
g.
For each person identified, state his or her qualifications and training, and provide the most current resume available.
Response
A listing of contract employees who were badged for unescorted access since January 1,1989, is available for inspection. This list does not, however, distinguish between employees who had responsibility for maintenance taska and those who did not. However, for any given contract employee, a reference should be.available to a specific contract, which would reveal the nature of the jobs for which the person was hired. These documents are likewise available for inspection.
.g.
l v
w w
o t
- a. See above,
- b. See above, c.
For longer term contract personnel, instruction would be provided in the same manner as is described in the response to Interrogatories 2 and 3, above. For job specific contractor personnel, training is tailored to the particular task for which the personnel have been engaged.
- d. Instruction would be provided in the same manner as is described in the response to Interrogatories 2 and 3, above, and the applicable documentation would be of the same type,
- c. This information is available from the records described in the introductory paragraph of this response, f.
This information is available from the records described in the introductory paragraph of this response,
- g. This information is available from the records described in the introductory parar,raph of this response.
Interrogatory No. 5.
Interrogatory:
- 5. Identify each and every licensed control room operator, senior control operator, and shift supervisor who is currently employed by Vermont Yankee, or has been in your employ at any time since January 1,1988. (Please note: The infor. -
mation for operators is requested based on opinions reported in the Report #3-88 of LRS Incorporated, quoted in sub-part j of Contention Vll.) As to each such person, provide the following information:
- a. The dates of employment at Vermont Yankee,
- b. All changes in responsibilities while employed at Vermont Yankee, and the effective date to each such change,
- c. For each person identified, state his or her qualifications and training, and provide the most current resume available.
9
l
Response
A listing of licensed control room operators, senior control room operators i
and shift supervisors since 1/1/88 is provided on Attachment 5-1.
- a. See Attachment 5 1.
- b. See Attachment 5-1, i
c.
Resumbs are available for your review in our Personnel Department.
The entry level qualifications are contained in the job descriptions.
[
Training is provided in accordance _with the INPO accredited train.
ing program and copies of training records are available in our Training Department.
laterrogatory No. 6.
I interrogatory:
- 6. Please describe in detail the current licensing basis for each structure, system and component of the Vermont Yankee plant.
Response
The VYNPS licensing basis is the set uf requirements established by the following sources:
Facility Operating License (including Technical Specifications),
i Applicable Commission Regulations.
Certain NRC orders (those amounting to license amendmerits).
Certain Licensee commitments.
t 1
Vermont Yankee has developed an index that includes a reference to the documents contributing to the current licensing basis, which index is known as the Engineering Design Basis Manual. The Engineering Design Basis l
Manual, and the source documents' indexed therein, are available for inspection.
l laterrogatory No. 7.
-i interrogatory:
7.
For each of the items described in the preceding question: '
h e
r b
l t
- a. State whether the current licensing basis is different from the licensing basis when the Vermont Yankee plant was originally granted its operating license.
- b. If the current licensing basis is different from the original
[
licensing basis, identify each and every document which I
caused the licensing basis to change from its original basis.
l l
Response
Please note that this question assumes that there is a
- licensing basis' document separately for each system, structure and component comprising Vermont Yankee. This is not correct. There is a licensing basis for the plant, and the systems, structures and components must satisfy it. Thus this question cannot be answered precisely as framed. Nonetheless, to the extent that information of this sort exists (or information of a different sort was intended to be elicited), the information can be derived from the documents described in the response to Interrogatory No. 6.
Interrogatory No. g.
interrogatory:
8.
Identify each and every person who has been responsible for review-ing maintenance requests or work orders for the Vermont Yankee plant with regard to tne current licensing basis of structures, systems i
and components, or with regard to the regulatory or safety impact of the request or work orders, at any time since January 1,1988.- As to each such person, provide the following information:
a.
What was his or her precise responsibility or responsibilities?
- b. Identify each and every structure, system and component upon which he or she determined the current licensing basis or i
determined the regulatory or safety impact.
c, Describe in detail the precise instructions he or she received for the performance of his or her review of maintenance requests or work orders,
- d. Describe in detail the manner in which he or she received -
instructions.
l
- 1) Who provided the instruction?
- 2) In what form was it provided? -
- 3) Identify all documentation that exists to verify that the instructions were provided and received.
L l
l
- i. l l
l I
t
f i
h
- e. Identify his or her dates of employment by Vermont Yankee, f.
Describe any changes in responsibilities while employed with Vermont Yankee, and identify the effective dates of these changes.
g.
For each person identified, state his or her qualifications and training, and provide the most current resumd available.
Response
A list of individuals responsible for the review of Maintenance Requests is provided as Attachment 8-1.
a.
Procedure AP 0021 (* Maintenance Requests") describes the process i
used to repair plant comtHhlents. As noted in that procedure, maintenance, operations and engineering support department person-nel and supervisors are responsible for the review of maintenance requests. Vermont Yankee employees treat the potential " safety impact" of tasks assigned to them as an integral part of their respon-sibilities. The potential impact of maintenance requests on the
- licensing basis" or the design basis is reviewed by the Quality Assurance Coordinator (*QAC") and the Engineering Support Super-visor ('ESS"). Any plant maintenance that potentially impacts the current licensing basis is accomplished via a plattt or engineering.
design change or plant alteration, as defined in AP 6000,6004,6003, respectively. The duty Shift Supervisor has the responsibility of l
system Safety Class determination. The repair department head has the responsibility for component safety class determination. The precise responsibilities of thise individuals with regard to this review t
is set forth in procedure AP-0021.
k
- b. The maintenance requests reviewed by any. specific individual are available for inspection.
c, Each QAC person receives training in ASME Section XI scope and requirements. The QAC and ESS personnel receive training in plant procedures: AP 6000(Plant Design Change Requests), AP 6003 (Plant Alteration Requests) AP 6004 (Engineering Design Change Request),
2 i
l AP 0021 (Maintenance Request), and AP 6022 (Job Order Files),
- d. The QAC instruction is performed formally by the Vermont Yankee Training Department and informally by the departing QAC or by the l
Senior QA Engineer. ESS instruction in the use of the applicable procedures is performed formally by the Vermont Yankee Training <
l l
i
..e.
w
a Department. Documentation of formal training is maintained by the Training Department and _is available for inspection,
- e. This information is contained in Attachment 8-1.
f.
This information is contained in Attachment 81.
- g. These resumes are available for inspection.
Interrogatory No. 9.
Interrogatory:
9.
Explain how personnel identified in the preceding question are able to acctss the current licensing basis for structures, systems and components. In your response, please provide the following-informatiott;
- a. Identif) all procedures which control or establish this review of current licercing basis.
- b. Is the current licensing basis maintained in a centrallocation, access'.ble to personnel responsible for maintenance review?
- c. Is the current licensing basis distributed by a controlled distribution? If yes, please respond to the following:
- 1) Identify the names of the documents in this distribution.
- 2) Identify the procedure by which these documents are controlled and distributed.
- 3) Identify the dates and describe in detail the contents of the last five revisions to these documents,
- d. Is the current licensing basis maintained in a format accessible by computer? If yes, please respond to the following:
l
!) Identify the manual and descriptive information which j
describe the computer program, including how to access information in the current licensing basis by structure, l
system or component.
- 2) Identdy the procedure by which this computer data base is controlled.
- 1) How is the modification of this computer data base con-trolled?
- 4) Who may modify this computer data base? I l
l l
l L.
i i
- 5) In what ways is the data base modified?
- 6) How are modifications to this data base verified as T
correct?
c e.
Is the current licensing basis for these reviews considered to f
- be the FSAR? If yes, please respond to the following:
- 1) Does the FSAR contain the complete current licensing basis for each and every structure, system and component?
- 2) If the response to the above is negative, how does the reviewer include the missing portions of the current licensing basis in his or her review?
- 3) is the FSAR indexed in detail by structure, system, and component? If not, describe how the reviewer is able to assure himself or herself that all of the licensing basis has -
been considered (for example, an electrical requirement that h embedded within the accident analyses assump.
J tions)?
t f.
If the current licensing basis is not maintained for the main-tenance reviewer by either of the methods of b, c, d or e above,then:
i
- 1) Please describe the method by which the current licensing basis is available to the reviewer.
- 2) Identify all documents relied upon for this review.
- 3) Describe the qualifications and provide the most current I
resum4 available and employment history at Vermont Yankee for all personnel relied upon for this review.
Response
- a. The requirements of the current licensing basis are enveloped by the -
Vermont Yankee procedures and policies used by personnel to conduct maintenance activities. This is ensured through procedure development and review as controlled by AP 0831 ' Plant Procedures."
The discussion section of that procedure states: " Administrative controls (procedures) are necessary for the safe and efficient opera-tion and maintenance of the plant and to ensure compliance with license limitations, technical specification requirements, state and federal controls and established safe work practices."
l-
- 14
.i l
,r v
In cases where procedure changes may involve changes to the i
licensing basis, they receive a safety evaluation per the requirements l
of 10 C.F.R. l 50.59.
As discussed above, VY irnplements licensing basis review through the operating procedures. Therefore, it is not always necessary for personnel to directly review the licensing basis, since it is captured in l
the necessary procedures. Examples of this type of procedure are:
A P 0021
' Maintenance Request" AP 0013 ' Replacement of Environmentally Qualified Equip-ment
- AP 6000 ' Plant Design Change Requests
- AP 6002 ' Preparing 50.59 Safety Evaluations"'
AP 6004 " Engineering Design Change Requests' A detailed review of the licensing basis is accomplished during the preparation of all design changes (EDCR or PDCR).
- b. Yes.
c.
Yes.
- 1) The documents in this distribution are identified in the response -
to question 6. Additionally, as stated in sub-part a, the require-ments of the current licensing basis are enveloped by the Vermont Yankee policies and procedures used by personnel to conduct maintenance activities.
- 2) Distribution is controlled by Document Control Procedure AP.
6805 Complete distribution lists are available for review.
I I
- 3) The specifics of revisions to these documents, including revision date, are available from an inspection of the documents,
- d. Yes. Statements of the licensing basis as extracted from the VY FSAR and regulatory correspondence are contained in the controlled document entitled ' Engineering' Design Basis Manual."
These identical items are in a computer data base.
I I) Instructions for user access to the computer data base are con-tained iri the " Engineering Design Basis Manual."
' l I
t l
T i
- 2) The procedure by which this data base is controlled is contained
+
in the
- Engineering Design Basis Manual.*
[
- 3) The data base is password protected to assure only authorized data t
entry, deletion, or modification.
l
- 4) The data base may be modified only by authorized personnel, as set forth in the
- Engineering Design Basis Manual."
j t
- 5) Modification is by addition, revision or deletion of record, as appropriate given modifications of the
- Engineering Design Basis i
Manual."
l
- 6) Verification of modifications to the data base are made by using a data entry form that requires signature of the preparer and of a reviewer for each individual record.
e.
Not exclusively. See the response to interroga:ory No. 6.
f.
Not applicable.
laterrogatory No.10.
Interrogatory:
- 10. State the dates of any and all quality assurance audits since l
January 1,1988, which reviewed the adequacy of the process of reviewing maintenance requests or work orders with regard to the current licensing basis or regulatory or safety impact of the request or work order. Identify all the results of these -
audits, including audit reports, reports to management, audit check lists, informal check lists and hand written notes.
Response
VY-88-06 Maintenance issued 12/30/88 VY-89-06A Maintenance issued 10/13/89 Other documents the identification of which is called for are identified in these two reports.
h a
B y
.e e
w
i Interrogatory No.11.
Interrogatory:
- 11. State the dates of any and all quality assurance audits since January 1,1988, which reviewed the adequacy of the process of maintaining the current licensing basis in a current and correct condition. Identify all the results of these audits, including audit reports, reports to management, audit check lists, informal check lists and hand written notes.
Objection:
i Vermont Yankee objects to this interrogatory on the ground that the subject thereof is not within the scope of the admitted contention.
Response
Without waiving this objection, but rather expressly relying upon the same, the following audits may be of the sort of which identification is requested:
VY-88-07 Plant Changes 1/11/89 VY-88-15 Technical Specifications 5/20/88 VY-88-01 Operations 1/24/89-NSD-88-03 Design - VY Project 1/9/89 VY-89 07 Plant Changes 10/31/89 VY 89-15 Technical Specifications 6/15/89 NSD-89-03 Design - VY Project 5/26/89 NSD-90-03 Design - VY Project 5/7/90 VY-89-01 Operations 8/2/89 Other documents the identification of which is called for are identified in these reports.
laterrogatory No.12.
Interrogatory:
- 12. Please identify all documents for which copies or access were provided to NRC Maintenance Team Inspectors for the inspection reported on Inspection Report No. 50 271/89-80.
These documents should include those identified in Appendix 1 of Inspection Report No. 50-271/89-80 (also attached as Appendix I to this set of interrogatories), as well as any other documen'ts provided to or reviewed by NRC inspectors, i
r
'i
t 4
Response
The documents provided to the NRC Maintenance Team Inspectors in response to their requests for documents contained in Appendix I of Inspection Report No. 50 271/89-80 are as follows:
Organization Chart r
1987 and 1988 System Maintenance Request / Plant Maintenance List Schedule for Surveillance Testing I&C Department Maintenance and Commitment Tracking List AP 0021 (8/7/89)
AP 0020 (8/12/87)
AP 0022 (12/18/89)
AP 0310 (5/4/90)
MR Training List The following Training Program Instruction Guides:
CEM 02-002 Rev. O AIC-06-001 Rey, O CMM-10 006 Rev,1
^
XIC-88-02 Rev, O CIC-01-002 Rev. 0 CMM-04-005 Rev. O AEM-06-001 Rev,1 -
ACH-02-00lt Rev. O VY Procedure Writers Guide VY Comparative Performance Indicator Report Performance Monitoring Memo AP 0028 (5/5/89) l AP 0200 (7/l/89) l Supervisor's Guide - Performance Appraisal 1989 Plant Goals Maintenance Department Organization Chart 1988 Maintenance Requests (Index)
System Problem List Instrument & Controls Maintenance Request (Index)
Shutdown Work List l
OP 4257 (6/3/89) i OP $223 (6/3/89) l OP $225 (8/7/89)
OP 4124 (9/25/89)
OP 5212 (7/31/89)
OP $304 (12/2/89) '
OP 4209 (2/3/90.)
i OP 4214 (5/13/90) 1 1
i l I i
f
)
k I
l OP $361 (11/13/89)
OP 4100 (8/12/89).
{
t OP 4123 (2/2/89)
OP 4205 (2/3/90)
OP 4211 (3/2/89)
OP 4256 (4/25/90) l OP $221 (6/3/89)
-l MR 87-3250
)
MR 88-0223 i
MR 87-2446 MR 88 2963 MR 88 0308 OP $220 (5/12/89)
OP 5337 (5/4/89)
RP $338 (3/16/90)
Outage Schedule Notebook i
VYNPC Plant Mechanic Training Program Description VYNPC I&C Specialist Training Program Description f
Maintenance Training Program Procedure Review Matrix
,j AP 0125 Outage Meeting Minutes (1/28/89) j Maintenance Work Schedule (Six Week) l Maintenance Work Schedule (90-Day)
Maintenance Work Schedule (Weekly)
OP 0505 l
OP 0502 l
OP 0506 ALARA Committee Meeting 89-01 Agenda TechnicalInformation Tracking Process Vendor Equipment Technical Information Program (VETIP) Block Diagram Direct Vendor Interface OP $219 OP 4203 OP 4337 OP 4126 OP 4257 l
OP $223 OP 5225 OP $361 OP 4100 OP 4123 OP 4124 1
OP 4144
[
OP 4205
- 19.
i OP 4207 OP 4209 OP 4211 OP 4212 l
OP 4213 OP4:14 OP 4245 OP 4256 AP 5212 OP $221 OP 5222 OP 5304 Safety Manusi Memo JPP to Distribution '1989 Safety Committee Election" VYNPC Joint Safety Committee Charter In addition, the inspectors had access to any YY procedure, policy or design document that might have been requested. Requested documents include:
SSFI Open and Closed Commitment items (as tracked by YY's AP 0028 process).
MR 88-1004 I
Class IE Instrument List July,1988,' 13C PM History Valve V10 Radiation Protection incident Report (pertaining to tagging of l
TIP machines prior to drywell or TIP room entry).
Additional records may have been requested and provided during the inspection, but no records of any documents that may have been prnvided or inspected beyond the foregoing were kept, laterrogatory No. '3.
Interrogatory; l
i
- 13. For all revisions to the documents identified in question 12 l
since the maintenance team inspection:
- s. Please identify the location and nature of each revision.
- b. Please describe in detail the reason each revision has been i
made.
/
k t !
e t
or w
-w
I
Response
l i
The revision history for each of the documents identified in the foregoing interrogatory can be derived from an inspection of the current revision of the document itself.
Interrogatory No.1&,
j Interrogatory:
- 14. Please identify each and every document, in addition to those in r
response to interrogatory 12 above, which constitutes the main-tenance program upon which the licensee relies for the license-t extension sought in the application. Please organize your response
- in the following categorier:
a.
Each and every written procedure,
- b. Each and every industry standard, recommendation or
- practice, c.
Each and every NRC requirement.
I
- d. - Each and every vendor recommendation.
e.
Every other document relied upon.
Response
t Subject to the qualification stated at the foot of this response:-
t The VYNPS procedures that bearing primarily upon maintenance and f
surveillance are as set forth on Attachment 14-1 to these answers.1 To the extent that any of the classes of items identified in sub-parts.b-e of.the interrogatory are components of the formal' program, they: have been j
captured in the procedures.
l Please note that the foregoing describes the procedural " maintenance pro-gram" as it exists as of the date of these interrogatories. To the extent that j.
_ the interrogatory implies either that the " maintenance program" is fixed, or.
that the nature of the maintenance program as it will exist in 2007 is l
presently determinable, the implication is in error. What Vermont Yankee
~
I refers to in the cited portion of Attachment 2 to the Application'.for an i
operating license amendment in' this proceeding is the entirety of the l
maintenance function, which generally means the function of' ensuring that structures, systems and components continue in service to achieve their design a
function, as that function has been' performed by Vermont Yankee for the i
't
i 5
l i
last 18 years, including the commitment of Vermont Yankee, as an organiza-tion, to perform that function and the ability of. Vermont Yankee, as a--
organization, to perform that function. The reference in Attachment 2 is not, therefore, to any specific document or procedure, or any specific method
!1 of implementation.
Interrogatory No.15.
Interrogatory:
- 15. Specifically identify all maintenance documents produced since or.
as a result of the maintenance team inspection.This identification :
_1 should include-the " comprehensive and formal mcintenance' program document" identified in BVY 89-75.
Response
Vermont Yankee " Maintenance Program," Rev. 0 (12/89),
AP 0312 (" Equipment Technical Information") Rev. O.
AP 0021 (" Maintenance Requests") Rev.16.
AP 0140 ("VY Local Control Switching Rules") and Rev.13.
The revision history of the procedures identified on Attachment 14-1 can be derived from an inspection of the current revision of each procedure. Please note that this interrogatory was interpreted refer to procedures, not to output (product) documents, such a maintenance requests, trend ~ reports, and the like.
laterrogatory No.16.
Interrogatory:
- 16. Please respond to the following,concerning the vendor manual update program:
a.
Identify the person or persons who have performed or are performing the vendor manual update. For each such person, state his or her technical qualifications, and provide the most recent resume available.
- b. Identify the procedure (s) which govern (s) the vendor manual.
update program, c.
Identify the date of any and all quality assurance audits of:
1.
The status of vendor manuals. l 4
L
(
t ii. The progress of the vendor manual update program.
iii. The adequacy of the vendor manual update program,
- d. Identify the documentation of-the results of' the audits identified in sub-part c, including audit reports, reports to management, audit check lists, handwritten check lists, and informal notes, j
. e.
As of the date of response to these interrogatories, what per-centage of the vendor manuals for safety-related structures, i
systems and components has not been updated?
- f.
Identify each vendor manual included in the percen'tage -
provided for the above sub-part e, i.e., that has not been -
updated.
t As of the date of response to these interrogatories, wh'at per g.
r
- centage of the vendor manuals for nonsafety-related struc-i tures, systems and components has not been updated?
)
)
h ' identify each' vendor manual included in the percentage provided for the above sub-part g, i.e., that has not been
- updated,
Response
a.
The vendor manual update project was the responsibility of.- the Maintenance Superintendent, utilizing a contract engineering service -
to s9pply technical reviewers.L The Maintenance Superintendent has had 18 years of service in the maintenance organizations at VYNPS.
Technical reviewers supplied by the contract engineering firm'were.
evaluated for their past experience at other nuclear facilities in similar types of assignments. All had.a minimum of five years experience in the review and preparation of maintenance technical.
i documents such as procedures and technical reviews. One individual.
was previously an Instrument & Controls Department foreman at the VY plant site. Regular. interface.with the Maintenance and Instru.
ment & Controls Departments' technical personnel was'an integral part of the update process. Resum6s for all technical reviewers as well as for the Maintenance Superintendent are available for inspec-tion. The program continues for the remaining safety-related vendor l'
documents under the direction of the Operations Superintendent, whose resume is also available for inspection.
'~
1 1-
- b. AP 0312
(" Equipment Technical Information")
l AP 0028'
(" Operating Experience' Review, and Assess-ment / Commitment Tracking")
1 :
l
v -
k
- i
- c. VY-89-06a' Maintenance 10/13/89.
j VY-88-06 Maintenance 12/30/88 j
l 5 These reports,- and any documentation - referred to therein, are available for inspection.
y
- d. See sub-part (c).
e.
As of 5/3/90,27% of the safety related vendor manuals have not '
p been reviewed (and updated as required).-
[
1 i
f.
A listing of those safety-related manuals is provided as Attachment
[
16-1.
'g.
The program does not apply to non-safety related manuals.
' ]
- h. The program does not apply to non-safety related manuals.'
Interrogatory No,1 interrogatory:
- 17. Please identify all documents related to tne' "Com' uterized -.
p Maintenance Material Management System (CMMMS)" referred to in BVY 89-75, including the development plan referred to in
~ BVY 89-75, all assessment documentation referred to in BVY z
89-86, the system description - bid' specification, purchase i
specification, and all internal and external correspondence, with attachments.
Response
q i
VYNPC referred to the development of a CMMMS in a response to an NRC.
Maintenance team inspection conducted at VYNPS between February 27 and March 10,1989. See BVY-89-75, dated 8/11/89 ): An unrelated document (BVY-89-86, dated 9/25/89) also referred to preliminary scoping work for-a CMMMS.
Other documents that relate to CMMMS include staff assignments, objectives, -
meeting minutes, and preliminary budget estimates. These documents are primarily authored by Mr. Robert E. Sojka, who was assigned the respon-1 sibility of evaluating CMMMS. They are available for inspection and consist of the following:
l Nolan Norton Report (12/88)-
t 1-l i
24
.i,
H 1
t Meeting Minutes - VYBS 89/76 (6/12/89 Position Description (8/7/89)
Objectives - VYBS 89/99 (8/7/89)'
Staff Assignments - VYBS 89/107 (8/8/89) l Meeting Minutes - VYBS 89/106 (9/5/89).
Budget issues - VYBS 89/113 (9/19/89)
Budget issues - VYBS 89/114 (9/20/89)'
~ Budget Issues - VYBS 89/121 (9/28/89)
Interrogatory No.18.
Interrogatory:
-{
a
- 18. For the CMMMS identified in the interro8atory above, please respond to the following:
a.
If a CMMMS supplier has been chosen,~ identify the supplier.
b.: If a CMMMS supplier has been chosen, state in full the qualifications of the supplier to provide a CMMMS.
- c. If a CMMMS supplier has not been chosen,' identify each supplier who is on your approved bidders list, or from whom you have received, or expect to receive, a bid.-
- d. If bids hase been received, provide the date upon which they' were received and identify the suppliers who provided bids.-
e.
If bids have not been received, provide the'date upon which t
'{
bids are expected, or, if that date cannot be determined, the '-
date and identification of the next schedule milestone for the
~ CMMMS.
Response
[
a.
Not applicable.
- b. Not applicable.
O
- c. See below.
i 4
- d. Bonner & Moore Consulting Services 2727 Allen Parkway Houston, Texas 77019 -
EI International, Inc.
j 201 Benton Avenue i
5
+
0 09 N
b f a
e,.s a
w y
i e
r k
Suite 204
' i Linthicum, Maryland 21090 t
Champs Software. Inc, 1255 North Vantage Point Drive '
Crystal River, Florida 32629
- The System Works, Inc, 1640 Powers Ferry Road Marietta, Georgia 30067 All bids were received on or before May 4,1990, i
e.
Not appilcable,.
Interrogatory No.19. -
Interrogatory:
-19. Please identify all documents related to containment integrity testing (i.e., testing-in accordance with 10 CFR 50, Appendix J)-
during the life of the Vermont Yankee plant,- including all test
- reports, licensee event reports, test results, calibration records.
.d internal memoranda, maintenance requests, correspondence, and contractor records, Objection:
Vermont Yankee objects to this interrogatory to the extent that it is related to proposed Contention 6 and proposed Contention 8 sub-part "m," which -
were excluded by the Board.
F
Response
Without waiving its objection to this interrogatory, but' rather expressly i relying ~ upon the same, Vermont Yankee provides the following information:.
j The VYNPS program for ' compliance with the requirements of 10 C F.R.,
Part 50, Appendix J is known as the Vermont Yankee Primary Containment ~
L Leak Rate Testing Program, implemented by procedures OP-4029 (Type A Integrated Leak Rate Testing) and 4 0P-4030 (Types: B and C testing).
Documentation includes data sheets recording the results of the tests and _
documentation showing close out of test results. Such documentation is '
available for inspection. In addition, a comprehensive report is prepared and submitted to the NRC following the completion of the Typd A test, and these i
l ;
1 l-l 1
l
^
i l
h
~
reports are also available for inspection, and NRC includes a section discussing each Type A test in its regular inspection Reports for VYNPS.
laterrogatory No. 20, Interrogatory:
- 20. Please list of all structures, systems and components. Your attention is directed to the definition of. structures, systems and
. [
components, and specifically part b)of the definition," structures,s systems and components whose failure can cause or adversely affect a transient or accident that significantly challenges struc-tures, systems and components relied upon for the integrity of the T
reactor coolant pressure boundary, safe shutdown, or accident -
t mitigation." In your response, please include the physical loca-
-tion of each component.
Response
This information is contained in FSAR. Layout drawings showing major component / structure locations and arrangement are provided as figures-throughout the FSAR, Chapter 14 discusses the response of the plant to transients and accidents.
Interrogator;,No. 21.
Interrogatory:
- 21. Please!!dentify "the plant master equipment list for safety-re-lated equipment" that is referenced in Enclosure 1 of BVY 89-75.x
Response
l The item called for is known as the Master Equipment List or MEL ' The.
MEL identifies the safety classification of components in safety-related systems. The safety class was initially determined by reference to P&lD and one-line wiring diagrams. Any future changes to this database are effected in accordance with the directions in the Safety Class Manual.
Interrogatory No. 22.
Interrogatory:
- 22. Please identify by revision number and date the current or most recent Master Equipment List for Environmentally Qualified (EQ) equipment that is referenced in Enclosure 1 of BVY 89-75.
4 27 -
T I
d
+
d w
y
p i-Objection:
Vermont Yankee objects to this interrogatory on the Grounds that it appears '
l to be related only to proposed Contention 6, sub-part "t," which was excluded by the Board.
A Interrogatory No. 23.
i
]
Interrogatory:
- 23. Please identify all documents which describe the environmental conditions of each area of the Vermont Yankee plant evaluated as part of your 10 CFR 50.49 evaluation,. including those areas considered to be mild environments.
Objection:
I Vermont Yankee objects to tbis interrogatory on the same grounds as apply i"
to Interrogatory No. 22..
Interrogatory No. 24.-
Interrogatory:
- 24. Please identify all documents which describe the environmental l.
conditions of each area of the ' Vermont. Yankee. plant, not provided as part of the above interrogatory, which house systems -
l or components whose failure-can cause or adversely affect s' l
transient or accident that significantly challenges structures, systems and components relied upon for-the' integrity of the reactor coolant pressure boundary, safe shutdown, or accident mitigation.
Objection:
)
Vermont Yankee objects to this interrogatory on the same grounds as apply -
-i to Interrogatory No. 22.
Interrogatory No. 25.
Interrogatory:
- 25. Regarding qualified life, design life and installed life, i
a.
Please list,-in the format of the listing provided in inter-rogatory 20 (or alternatively, the formats of the lists from interrogatories 21 and 22, plus any additional structures, systems and components not appearing on these lists), the
..l i
\\
s s
l T
I qualified life, design life and installed life of each structure, system and component in the Vermont Yankee plant.
s L
- b. Please indicate with specificity the bases for the' qualified
[
q life, design life and installed life of the structures, systems -
and components. For each document upon which you rely, identify the document and state the precise location within the document which provides the qualified life, design life and I
installed life for each for each structure, system and com-L ponent.
c.
Describe and identify documents which describe the manner
[
in which qualified life, design life or installed life is deter '
i mined or demonstrated for each structure, system or com r ponent. Describe and identify this information specifically for the following categories of Vermont Yankee plant equip-ment (Your attention is directed to the definition section for the meaning of " safety-related", and "nonsafety-related"):
- 1. Safety-related electrical components located in areas' i
subjected to harsh environments for which the exclusion-of 10 CFR 50.49(k) is applied.
- 2. Safety-related electrical components located in areas subjected to harsh environments for which the exclusion-r of 10 CFR 50.49(k)is not applied.
3, Safety-related' electrical components, located' in areas subjected to mild environments.
' 4.
Nonsafety-related electrical components located in areas subjected to' harsh environments.
' 5. 'Nonsafety-related electri;al components located in areas subjected to mild environments.
- 6. Safety-related mechanical components located in areas:
subjected to harsh environments.-
- 7. Safety-related mechanical' components located in areas subjected to mild environments.
l
- 8. Nonsafety-relatedmechanicalcomponentslocatedinareas.
subjected to harsh environments.
1
- 9. Nonsafety-related mechanicalcomponentslocated in areas '
subjected to mild environments.
- 10. Safety-related and nonsafety-related structures.
j
. r f
fi e
4 1
1;
}
t
-]
'd.
In the response to sub-part e above, identify all written proce-f dures which govern the determination of qualified life, design
[
life and installed life of each category of equipmenti e.
Identify the dates of all quality assurance audits since January..
1,1988, which reviewed the' adequacy of the process of determining qualified life or design life of structures, systems -
and components. Identify-.all the results of these audits,-
including audit reports, reports to management, audit check ;
lists, informal check lists and handwritten notes.
t Objection:
i Vermont. Yankee objects to this interrogatory, on the ground that it appears-
- to relate only to proposed Contention 6, which was excluded by the Boardi Interrogatory No. 26, interrogatory:
c 1
Please identify all documents available to you providing failure rate -
4 information on the structures, systems and components of the. Vermont-Yankee plant. Include data which is industry. wide and data which is Vermont Yankee plant specific.
Response
l Interpreting the term." failure rate information" to mean data that accounts--
l both for the number of failures and the number of operating. hours, in--
- service hours, demands, or other measure of use, we are aware of the-following data sources:
The Nuclear Plant Reliability Data System (industry-wide).
Vermont Yankee Response to USNRC Request for Additional Informa-l tion:- Surveillance Testing of ECCS and SLC Equipment,' FVY 88-58 (7/15/88) (plant specific).
Ab t
i NUREG/CR-1205, " Data Sumtnaries of Licenseco Event Reports of.
I Pumps at U. S. Commercial Nuclear Power Plants"(itidustry-wide).
NUREG/CR-1363, " Data Summaries of Licensee Event' Reports of-Valves at U. S. Commercial Nuclear Power Plants"(industry-wide).
1 I
Unpublished data in process in connection with the VYNPS IPE program,'
contained lu. calculation files at NSD, YAEC (plant specific).
[
a c
\\
7
- I
.J
I.
~.\\
In addition, Vermont Yankee tracks specific BWR safety system performance j
for the quarterly INPO report. This data looks at the following information:
j i
High Pressure Coolant Injection System unavailability hours.
<\\
Reactor Containment isolation Cooling System unavailability hours.-
~ RHR System and component ' unavailability, hours.
Emergency diesel generator unavailability hours.
3 i
1 Unplanned safety system actuations.
1 R
Each system is tracked for planned, unplanned times of unavailability. This f
data is sent to INPOc which then compiles the data and compares.VY's ;
a specific data to industry averages.
In addition, Vermont Yankee maintenance history records contain specific; failure history information for specific Vermont Yankee components, but this -
is not " failure rate information" as defined above.
1 Interrogatory' No. 27.
~
Interrogatory:
l
- 27. Please identify 'all purchase specifications for Vermont Yankee l
plant structures, systems and components.
j Objection:
Vermont Yankee objects to this interrogatory, en the ground that'it appears to related only to proposed Contention 6 and proposed Contention 7, sub -
part "o," which were excluded by the Board.
]
1 Interrogatory No. 28.
l Interrogatory:
i I
- 28. Please describe in detail all procurement quality control require-ments (or identify the documents where these requirements are -
found) for the structures, systems and components of the Vermont l
Yankee plant. : This includes, but is not limited to, review and j
approval of vendor drawings-and procedures, nondestructive j
examinations, performance tests and analyses. This request seeks information to determine the amount of pre-aging introduced by I
1 l;
procurement tests and examinations, and the level at which'
. l l-l ?
o l
1 i
I manufacturing flaws affecting aging could have been detected by J
l nondestructive examinations.
- t 1
Objection:
I Vermont Yankee objects to this interrogatory, on the ground that it appears -
to related only to proposed Contention 6 and proposed Contention 7. sub-part "O," which were excluded by the_Boardi Interrogatory' No. 29.
l:
Interrogatory:
1
- 29. Please identify the documents..which ' demonstrate that the procurement quality control requirements were' satisfactorily.
completed.
q
- l Objection
Vermont Yankee objects to this interrogatory, on the ground that it appears to related only to proposed Contention 6 and' proposed Contention 7, sub.
'l part "o," which were excluded by the Board.
Interrogatory No.'30.
i
- Interrogatory:
- 30. Please -describe in. detail all construction; quality, control' and; quality assurance requirements (or identify documents where these -
requirements are found) for the structures, systems and com-L i
ponents of the Vermont-Yankee plant.,This includes, but is not
-l limited to, receipt inspections, weld examinations,' preoperational '
i tests and hydro tests.. This request seeks information to deter-~
l,
'mine the amount of pre-aging introduced by construction tests
}
and examinations.
~
Objection:
n Vermont Yankee objects to this interrogatory, on the ground that it appears.
to relate only to proposed Contention 6 and proposed Contention 7, sub-part "o," which were excluded by the Board.
Interrogatory No. 31.
d
?
interrogatory:
- 31. Please identify the documents which demonstrate that.the construction quality control and quality assurance require -
ments were satisfactorily completed.
T
-i.!
r
. ~
l t
Objection:
Vermont Yankee objects to this interrogatory, on the ground that it appears to relate only to proposed Contention 6 and proposed Contention 7, sub-
' f part "o," which were excluded by the Board.
-Interrogatory No. 32.
Interrogatory:
- 32. Please identify all. inservice testing and inservice inspection requirements (or identify documents where these requirements are found) for the structures systems and components of the Vermont 1
Yankee plant.
1
Response
The VYNPS Inservice Testing Program and inservice inspection Programs are l
written to satisfy the requirements of 10 C.F.R. I 50.55a(g) as published in the Code of Federal Regulations dated January 1,1982 - As such the testing -
and inspection of Safety Class 1,' 2, and 3 components is effectively per-formed in accordance with ASME Section XI,1980 Edition,- through'and including the winter 1980 addenda. L These programs are reviewed and approved by the NRC. These programs are revised as defined by 10 C.F.R.
l or as mandated by changes in plant configuration.'
~
o
.Other tests and inspections are also performed as a result of internal and
-J external commitments made by Vermont Yankee as a result of plant ex-perience, industry experience, vendor recommendations, or regulatory.
1 I
changes. These additional tests and inspections are controlled and schedule-b.y AP 4000 (Surveillance Testing Control) or AP 0028 (Operating Experience.
Review and Assessment / Commitment Tracking).
~
t.,
- f Interrogatory No. 33, interrogatory:
1
- 33. Please identify the documents which demonstrate that the inservice testing and ' inservice inspection requirements were.
\\ satisfactorily completed.Include the' records of inspections completed under the ISI Program referred to in Section 3.2.2.1 of
.' of the application.
!l
..f - l f
4 L
i i
Response
E Documentation of inservice tests is required and'provided by AP 0164.-
3
(" Operations Department inservice Testing") and AP 0206 (" Inservice Testing.
Vibration Measurements"). Operational, capacity and performance testing and surveillances are provided and documented by individual system surveil--
lance procedures.
Documentation of inservice inspections is provided on' individual data sheets for each inspection. _ In addition, a NIS-1 report is submitted. to' NRC =
following each refueling outage describing the details and the results of each.
i of our~ inspections. The documentation is provided in accordance with 105 A
C.F.R., Part 50 regulatory requirements and ASME Section XI requirements :
and retained by the Dc<rament Control Program. The NIS-l.is the " records ;
-of inspections" cornpleted under the ISI Program referred to in Section 3.2.2.1 -
of Attachment 2 of the application. These records are available for inspec.
tion.
Interrogatory No. 34.
Interrogatory:
i
- 34. Please state the purchase date, manufacture date, receipt date and
. installation date for the structures, systems and components of the Vermont Yankee plant which are requested to be listed in inter-.
rogatory 20.
~
(
Objection:
l Vermont Yankee objects to this interrogatory, on the ground that it appears to relate only to proposed Contention 6 and proposed Contention 7, sub-part "o," which were excluded by the Board.
i
- laterrogatory No. 35.
Interroga:ory:
- 35. Please oescribe in detail. the process by which the. storage.
requirements for each structure, system and component, before.
Installation, are determined. Identify all documents establishing or describing these requirements.
L Objection:
i Vermont Yankee objects to this interrogatory, on the ground that it appears to relate only to proposed Contention 6 and proposed Contention 7, sub-part "o," which were excluded by the Board.
l
. i !
-.1.N.a' a
w 9
i it-g r
Interrogatory No. 36.
Interrogatory;
- 36. Please identify the procedures which established storage methods during the construction period. In this identification, provide the dates of each revision to each of these proceduresc Objection:
Vermont Yankee objects to this interrogatory, on the ground that it appears
- to relate only to proposed Contention 6 and proposed Contention 7, sub-
? i part "o," which were excluded by the Board.'
i Interrogatory No. 37.
Interrogatory:
. 37. Please identify the procedures 'which have established storage 1 methods for structures, systems.and components since initial
-operation. In this identification, provide the revision history of.
i the storage procedures.
Objection:
l Vermont. Yankee objects to this interrogatory, on the ground that it" appears:
to relate only to proposed Contention 6, which was excluded by the Board.
Response
. Without waiving the foregoing objection but rather expressly relying upon 4
the same:
Procedures use'd for storage of-structures. systems and components are l
identified as follows:
,,4 p
l-l AP 0801
Receiving and Shipment of Material and Equipment". -
Rev,18 AP 0803
" Storage of Materials and Equipment" - Rev.11 j
YOQAP1A Identifies the standards which we are committed to in this I
area Preparation of 'a revision history involves reviewing each of the prior revisions, which will be made available upon request.
i
't r l
s s
5 i
q II
.g l
Interrogatory No. 38.
' interrogatory:
- 38. Please identify all documents which verify the. manner in which structures, systems and components are stored prior to installation at the Vermont Yankee plant.
Objection:
. Vermont Yankee objects to this interrogatory, on the ground that it appears
. to be related only to proposed Contention 6 and proposed Contention.7, sub-part "o," which were excluded by the Board.
t
^ Response:
3 a
Without waiving the foregoing objection, but rather expressly relying upon
~
g the same, Vermont Yankee supplies the following information-4 Procurement and Material Control Audits
- VY 89-8 (12/14/89)
'VY 88-8 (9/28/88)
VY 87-8 (12/23/87)'
VY 86-8 (12/22/86)
VY 85-8 (8/22/85).
. Note that the storage methods are one of thel attributes normally selected -
during the above audits.
i
-laterrogatory No. 39.
-].
Interrogatory:
- 39. Please state the dates of all quality assurance audits of the storage methods during the construction period of the Vermont Yankee plant.
Objection:
Vermont Yankee objects to this interrogatory, on the ground that it appears:
to be related only to proposed Contention 6 and proposed Contention 7 sub-part "o," which were excluded by the Board.
l l --
l, i
l l
- 3
p i-L l
f.-
Interrogatory No. 40.
l interrogatory:
l
- 40. Please identify all documentation of the audits listed in response.
L to the previous interrogatory, including audit reports, reports to l
management, audit check lists, informal check lists, and hand writ-l ten notes.
1 '.
Objection:
1 1
Vermont Yankee objects' to this interrogatory, on the ground that it appears 1 to be related only to (proposed Contention 6 and proposed Contention 7, sub-part "o,". which were excluded by the Board.
. Interrogatory.No, 41,
.i Interrogatory:
i
'41, Please identify all documents available concerning the environ-i !
mental conditions which structures, systems, components of the Vermont Yankee plant experienced during the period between the
-1 1
construction period date and'the operating license dnte. This
~
>k should include all documents' remaining available on environ -
mental conditions for: storage: locations and for; as-installed M
'in-plant conditions before operation,
]
i-
[
Objection:
l l
j; Vermont ^ Yankee objects to this interrogatory, on the ground that it appears' l
l l
to be related only.to proposed Contention 6 and proposed Contention 7, sub-part "o," which were excluded by the Board.
}I Interrogatory No. 42, Interrogatory:
- 42. Regarding the activity of " reconstituting'the design basis," as.
f described by Mr. Donald Reid of Vermont Yankee at the meeting -
l with NRC Region I in King of Prussia, PA, on January 26,1989.
1 please answer the following:.
l t
a.
Describe what is meant by " reconstituting the design basis."
]
1' l-
- b. Why is it necessary to reconstitute the design basis?
Ti 4
c.
Identify the' personnel performing the work involved in-reconstituting the design basis.
q l
l 1
37.-
i j
4 J
o
v
- d. Describe in detail the schedule for the design basis reconstitu-4 tion activity; include the dates when the program began and when it is scheduled to be completed.
e.
Has the completion date been adjusted since the beginning of the project? If so, how?
f.
Identify the procedure by 'which? his1 work is being ac-complished.
t g.
Provide the percentage of work (or percentage of design bases).
for which reconstitution has not been completed.
- h. State all design bases which have not been " reconstituted."
Response.'
s
- a. " Reconstituting the Design Basis
- means providing and maintaining a central cross-referencing data system that references applicable calcula-
' tions, specifications, design changes, licensing basis, licensing commit ments, and licensing correspondence;
- b. It isn't necessary. However, thd centralized system facilitates reference
^
to the current design basis and supporting information for all applications -
where such reference is' required or important,'and this facilitation (i) reduces engineering effort and (11) further reduces the potentini for over :
looked information. This system helps to assure that when facility -
changes are made (or other. circumstances arise that require an under.
l standing of the ' original designers'. intentions), ' applicable reference :
e information is quickly' and comprehensively available for resulting-j
.I recommendations and for consideration in the final evaluation.
c.
R. Swenson YNSD
. Systems Engineer;-
D. Yasi YNSD Lead Systems Engineer;;
R. Oliver
.YNSD Lead Mechanical Engineer;.
g P. Johnson YNSD Lead Electrical Engineer; i
D. January YNSD Lead I&C Engineer J. Hoffman YNSD Engineering Manager; S. Miller -
EYNSD Project Manager; K. Gavin.
YNSD Contractor Computer Data Entry, Module Prepai-ation;.
. M. Lenon YNSD Contractor Computer Data Entry, Module Prepar-ation; J. Kendrick -YNSD Computer Program Development; A. Kendrick, YNSD Computer Program Development; S. Misiaszek YNSD Computer Program Development; co ' '
e e
a-
+s.
il
+
1' l
l l'
M. Metell VYNPS -
Principal Engineer; and l
D. Reid '
Operations Support Manager.
Design Basis Reconstitution e forts began in 1987 and are an! ongoing r
d.
effort that will not end until the plant is decommissioned. If the question'
. is whether the Design Basis Manual is currently complete, the answer is that it is.
l:
- e. See above.
t d
l1
- f. Th'e procedure is contained in the Vermont Yankee Engineering Design a
I.
Basis Manual under sub-section " Administration of the Vermont Yankee -
l Design Basis Catalog" and Annex A " Procedure for Design Basis Catalog :
Development."
i i
- g. See above.
l.-
- h. See above.
Interrogatory No. 43.
^
Interrogatory:
}
- 43. Please describe in detail the external events and natural phenom- -
ena for which the Vermont Yankee plant is designed, for each of the design conditions and design basis events.
Re.tponse:
Sie FSAR chapters 2 and 12.
j l-Interrogatory No. 44.
Interrogatory;
- 44. Please identify all documents related to any safety system functional inspections (SSFIs) performed for the Vermont Yankee' plant.. This request includes, but is not limited to,: all internal correspondence and correspondence with Westec Incorporated, or other contractors all Westec Incorporated inspection results, records,-data sheets, findings, Westec internal memoranda; all documentation related to resolution of inspection findings; and the :
SSFI reports.
i
. f '.T !
4 h
I i
1
i a
~
Response
NRC Inspection and Enforcement Manual, Chapter 2515, Appendix C.
NSAC-121, Guidelines for Performing Safety System Functional Inspections,.
11/88.
Letter, Westec to VYNPC (88-017),2/4/88.
j Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Plant Safety System Functional Inspection.
prepared by ERC International /Westec - Power Engineering Division;
!!/18/88.
Memo. LAT to JPP/SRM (VYB 88/561),11/23/88.
Memo, LAT to SRM (VYB 88/572), 11/28/88.-
VYNPS SSFI Commitment Tracking List (per AP 0028),~ and item close-out-documentation identified therein.
7 Interrogatory No. 45, i
interrogatory:
v
- 45. Please identify all INPO reports describing reliability information
~
of Vermont. Yankee plant specific equipment, including all =
documents identifying: the Vermont Yankee' Uninterruptible Power Supply (UPS) as a reliability outlier.-
Response
Component Failure Analysis Reports '(CFARs) are available through the
=
INPO Nuclear Plant Reliability Data System (NPRDS). These reports previde :
l=
comparisons of the performance -standard component' typesc at Vermant Yankee to similar components industry wide. Vermont Yankee is not aware.
I of any INPO reports that identify the UPS as a reliability outlier.'
l i
Interrogatory.No. 46.
Interrogatory:
l l
- 46. State which of the reports identified in response to the previous interrogatory identify the UPS as a reliability outlier.
r l-t l
l l 1
)=
+
i i
Response
Vermont Yankee is not aware of any l$PO reports that identify the UPS as a reliability outlier, r
Interrogatory No. 47.
Irtterrogatory:
}
~
- 47. Please identify all procedures applicable to requalifying com-ponents to a longer installed life, as stated in Sections 3.2.2.2 and.
3.4.3 of Attachment 2 of the application.
Objection:
Vermont Yankee objects to this interrogatory, on the ground that the subject references are limited to the Environmental Qualification program under 10 t
C.F.R. i 50.49 and the interrogatory appears to be related only to proposed -
Centention 6, and in particular to sub-part "t" thereof, which was excluded by the Board, e
Interrogatory No. 48,
' interrogatory:
- 48. Pier.se describe in detail all methods by which components are :
I requalifkd to longer lives, and explain why these methods are valid.
Objecstw.:
Vermont Yankee objects to this interrogatory, on the ground that the subject references are limited to the Environmental Qualification program under 10 C.F.R. I 50.49 and the interrogatory appears to be related only to proposed.
[
Contention 6, and in particular to sub-part "t" thereof, which was excluded by the Board.
i Interrogatory No. 49.
Interrogatory:
- 49. Please list the following, in the format of the listing provided in i
interrogatory 2^1nr alteratively, the formats of the lists from interrogatories h 1nd 22, plus any additional structures, systems and components not appearing on these lists), for of each struc-i ture, system and component in the Vermont Yankee plant:. Each L
vendor recommendation for maintenance and each vendor recom- -
l mendation which contributes to maintaining the design' life or l
s >
L
=
a e
qualified life of the structure, system or component. This listing should include, but not be limited to, preventive maintenance actions, preventive maintenance frequencies, allowable or assumed
. environmental conditions, repetitive'actuations and lubrication 4
3 r
type.
~ Response:
The information requested is not contained in any single file location on site.
..3 It is, however, available for the most part in our maintenacce department files (vendor manuals,' PM work order forms, and summary of PM done/ma-l
' files and/or experience assessment files).
q Interrogatory No. 50.'.
Interrogatory:
- 50. lf for any reason, you decline to. provide the listing of vendor
- f recommendations requested. in
- the foregoing interrogatory.
-identify with specificity the location of each vendor recom-mendation for each structure, system and component. This iden-tification must state what portion of a document, by page number or section number, contains the referenced vendor recommenda-tion.
I
~
Response
l 1
i The information requested is not contained in any single file location on site.
it is, however, available for the most part in our maintenance department files (vendor manuals, PM work order forms, and summary of PM done/ma-chine repair cards, as identified in AP 0200'(" Maintenance Pro 8 ram"), EQ files and/or experience assessment files).
Interrogatory.No $1.
' ;f interrogatory:
St. For each vendor recommendation listed or identified in response -
to the previous two interrogatories, indicate whether:
- a. The recommendation has been followed precisely, or
- b. The recommendation has generally been followed, or
- c. The recommendation has not been followed.
3
~.I
< l t
l 1
m m..
3 A
Response
ll Vermont Yankee possesses no comprehensive compilation of vendor recom.
- mendations categorized as requested. Vermont Yankee generally follows vendor recommendations unless an evaluation is performed or judgment made that th'ere is a prefereable alternative. In' general, our review considers i.
- the recommendation's applicability, the historical e performance - of 'the l
I equipment / component and the significance of the equipment involved. Many l"
evaluations were made based on the judgment of experienced individuals and 1
as such are not formally documented. The current method of evaluation is provided in procedure AP 0028 (" Operating Experience Review and Assess-ment / Commitment Tracking") and AP 0312 (" Equipment Technical Informa-tion"). Documents relating to any given disposition are referenced in the.
Commitment Tracking system implemented per AP 0028.
a.
See above.
'f
- b. See above.
1 l_
- c. - See above.
t Interrogatory No. 52..
L interrogatory:
- 52. For each vendor recommendation listed or identified in response -
to interrogatories 49 and-50 which you have either generally '
followed or not follewed (if any), provide:
a.
An explanation of why the vendor recommendation has been generally followed or not followed.
l
- b. A description of the evaluation or justification performed (if -
l any) which demonstrates'the acceptability of not precisely.
si following the vendor recommendations.
j
- c. An identification of al' documents which are part.of. the s
evaluation or justification for not precisely following vendor recommendations.
Response
Procedurcs: AP 0028 (" Operating Experience Review and'. Assessment /
Commitment Tracking"), AP 020 (" Maintenance Program"),. AP 0310 ("Sur-veillance, Preventative and Corrective Maintenanc Program"),' and AP 0312
(" Equipment Technical Information") provide guidance in the processing of -
vendor recommendations.
i
- 1 e
m
..m
i l-i a
a.
See 51.a.
l-I
- b. See $1.b.
t
- c. See '51.c.
L
=<
l-laterrogatory 'No. 53.
i Interrogatory:
e.
- 53. If a vendor recommendation for' structures, systems' and com-L ponents is not precisely followed, do you always receive vendor.
concurrence for this action?
a, If your answer is yes, identify every vendor concurrence for -
each vendor recommendation which has not been precisely'
= followed.
- b. -If your answer is no, provide-every reason why vendor-.
concurrence is not necessary when vendor recommendations
-are not followed.
Response
In cases where vendor recommendations are not followed, venddr concur-rence is not generally requested.
n.
Not applicable.
l
- b. VYNPS has the qualifications and expertise within its staff to make
-C l
these types of assessments. In addition, VYNPS staff is more familiarc
~
with the performance of plant equipment and the environmental conditions, equipment history, and other specific criteria applicable to the judgments in question.
laterrogatory No. 54.
Interrogatory:
- 54. Identify any and all documents providing direction or instructions regarding following vendor recommendations for maintenance of structures, systems and components.
R i
'f
1
Response
l Procedures 'AP 0028 ("Orprating Experience Review and Assessment /
Commitment - Tracking"), AP 0200 (" Maintenance Program"), AP 0310 j
(" Surveillance, Preventative and Corrective Maintenance Program") and AP
)
- 0312 (" Vendor Technical Information") provide guidance in the processing of vendor recommendations.
Interrogatory No. 55.
Interrogatory:
$5. Please identify all procedures guiding persor,tsiin the determina.
~
tion of failure and root cause analysis.
Response
AP 0021
" Maintenance Requests" AP 0200 " Maintenance Program
- l AP 0010." Occurrence Reports / Notifications and Reports Due"(specifi-t cally Sections II (LER's) and III (PIR's)).
. AP 0310 " Surveillance : Preventative and. Corrective. Maintenance -
Program" VYNPC Users Guide for Root Cause-A'nalysis/
Interrogatory No. 56.
Interrogatory:
- 56. Please describe in detail the meth'od by which failure and root-cause evaluations are performed and documented for the fol-lowing cases:
l a.
Failures which result in LERs.
1'
- b. Failures for which a PRO is generated, but which do not result in LF.Rs.
- c. Failures of structures, systems and components which do not-result in generation of a PRO.
- d. Failures of-- nonsafety-related structures, systems or com-:
ponents whose failure can cause or adversely affect a transient i
?.
h c
- t 4
i
i or accident that significantly challenges structures, systems and components relied upon for the integrity of the reactor coolant pressure boundary, safe shutdown, or accident mitigation.
Response
a.
Per AP 0021 and AP 0010 directions and with the additional guidanc.
y contained in either AP 0200 or AP 0310 and with methods contained l
.in VYNPC Users Guide for Root Cause Analysis.
' j
'k
contained in either AP 0200 or AP 0310 and with methods contained in VYNPC Users Guide for Root Cause Analysis, q
- c. Per AP 0021' directions and with the additional guidance contained in either AP 0200 or AP 0310'and with methods contained in VYNPC :
l Users Guide for Root Cause Analysis.
[
0
- d. Per AP 0021 directions and with the additional guidance contained in either AP 0200 or AP 0310 and with methods contained in VYNPC-4 Users Guide for Root Cause Analysis, Interrogatory No. 57.
j interrogatory:.
$7. Identify all documentation of the root cause evaluations, including i
but not limited to documentation of methodology, discussed in the foregoing interrogatory.
\\
Response
- i i
Root cause evaluations have been performed as part of the determination of cause of failure on LER's, PIR's, and NCR's for.a' number of years. The j
conclusion of the evaluation is documented in the respective document, i
However, until recently there was no requirement to document the root cause i
evaluation itself, and no supporting documentation is available.
The Repair Department conducts probable cause analyses and root cause analyses using - the methodology contained in AP 0200 (" Maintenance Program"). The steps contained in these procedures are essentially as follows:
l
- 1. The Equiprnent Failure / Probable Cause Record (VYAPF 0200.03) provides a " cook book" method for probable cause determination. The Record is attached to all MRs, is completed by the worker (s) and reviewed by the assistant foreman..
a we v-
Y A
l
- 2. If further cause analysis is required, as determined by the assistant i
foreman on VYAPF 0200.03, an Equipment Failure / Probable Cause Engineering review is initiated by the senior maintenance engineer.
y c
3.
Root cause determinations are made in the following manners:
l direct review and disposition by the maintenance en-
~
=
gineering staff i
extensive root cause analysis using the VYNPC Users Guide for,
+
' Root Cause A_nalysis. This analysis is performed by.various'
=
departments and at times by specific groups designated to review a specific incident.
The result of a root cause analysis may be documented in the MR,'or one of the types of documents identified above.
= See also AP 0310 (" Surveillance Preventative and Corrective Maintenance.
Program") and AP 0021 (" Maintenance Request"), Rev.17 (due to be issued 6/1/90).
Interrogator) No. 58.
Interrogatory:
l
- 58. Please identify each and every training module, course or segment.
used by Vermont Yankee, which trains personnel to perform failure and root cause evaluations, i
Response
l Root cause training is provided using Technical Staff and Manager Training Program Instructor Guide RCA-001, Rev.1.
Failure cause training is provided to each responsible individual through the following department training instructor guides:
t Technical Staff and Manager Training Program XTS-90-001.
I&C Initial Training CIC-04-002 (" Maintenance Requests"), CIC 017 ("Troublesh,ooting").
Maintenance. Training Program CMM-01-005 (" Administrative Gui-dance").
!l
i t
l-Additionally, personnel recelve quality assurance training in accordance with AP 6700 (" Quality Assurance Training").
1 Interrogatory No. 59.
1
.y Interrogatory:
I i
i
- 59. Please identify each and every instruction, policy guidance, or l
l memorandum which has been operative since January 1,1988, l
which provides guidance or instructions to personnel perform-ing root cause evaluations, j
[
Response
The following documents have been used by personnel performing root cause analysis since January 1,'1988.
l.- NRC NUREG-1022 Licensee Event Report System
- 2. Operations Department Users Guide for Root Cause Analysis,
- 3. Corrective Action Task Force Report l
4.
Memo: J.P, Pelletier to Superintendent / Dept. Heads, dated 3/l'3/90,-
Subject:
Corrective Action Task Force Report Disposition c
- 5. Vermont Yankee NPC Users Guide for Root Cause Analysis (Rev.
i I)
- 6. Memo R.J. Wanczyk to Distribution (file'2.3) 3/11/86..
7.
Memo J.P. Pelletier to Department Heads (file 1.0) 11/7/86.-
l l
8.
Memo W.P. Murphy to Distribution (file VYB 88/250) 5/2/88.
- 9. Memo J.P. Pelletier to Distribution (file 1.0) 8/23/89.
Interrogatory No. 60.
interrogatory:
{
- 60. Do you agree with the statement from IR 89-80, at page 15, which states, "However, the inspectors.noted that no formal training program has been established in the methodology for performing
!r root cause analysis"? t i
=. 2
i l
5
- a. If your response is anything other than an unqualified affirmative, state each and every reason for your disagree.
ment.
t
- b. If your response is affirmative, explain how your personnel i
perform root cause evaluations without formal training,
Response
VYNPS agrees that there was, at the time in question, no formal training module at YYNPS denominated ' root cause analysis methodology" or the like.
VYNP5 did not at the time, and does not today, understand the quoted statement to imply that the YYNPS personnel engaged in root cause analysis lack the requisite education, training and experience for the task, if the i
statement had been to such effect, then VYNPS would not agree with it.
Personnel performing root causes analyses for VYNPS are personnel either (i) are degreed engineers, or (ii) have strong technical backgrounds and are supervised by degreed engineers. Because cf their educational backgrounds, professional engagements and natural aptitudes, engineers are people who typically want to know what equipment works or doesn't work. This aptitude is also the key ingredient in performing a root cause analysis and is the maln reason why ' informal' training has worked well at VYNPS for the last is years. Although the referenced Inspection Report refers specifically to ESD and NSD, it should be emphasized that other departments, such as Opera.
tions, Maintenance, I&C, Reactor Engineering, Chemistry, Radiation Protection, Construction and Management are all populated with degreed T
engineers and persons with strong technical backgrounds.
VYNPS has always recognized the important of root cause analysis and has
+
successfully over the past 18 years conducted root cause analysis by including aspects of root cause analysis in training, by using degreed engineers who have been educated in root cause analysis, and by informal training con.
ducted on the job. YY has focussed on correct root cause in Licensee Event Reports (LERs). In addition, VYNPS periodically sends several engineers to offsite training on root cause analysis, who then brief other VY personnel, during weekly department meetings, on what they have learned and what study materials they had acquired for department use.
- a. See above.
- b. See above. '
+
E 49
?
w
L laterrogatory No. 61.
Interrogatory:
- 61. Please identify all procedures guiding personnelin the determina-tion of the sefety consequences and implications of the failure, g
inoperability or degradation of structures, systems and com-
=
ponents, or of procedural inadequacies, i
Response
i The following procedures are used in the determination of safety conse-t quences and implications of failure, inoperability or degradation of struc-tures, systeras, and components, or of procedural inadequacies.
AP 0010 Occurrence Reports / Notification and Reports Due AP 0014 Safety Class Determination Instructions AP 0020 Control of Temporary Modifications AP 0042 Plant Fire Protection AP 0125 Plant Equipment Control t
AP 0154 Post Trip Review AP 6002 Preparing 50.59 Evaluations AP 6021 Nonconformance Reports l
laterrogatory No. 62.
Interrogatory:
- 62. Please describe in detail the method by which the safety conse-quence and implications of failure, inoperability or degradation i
of structures, systems and cotaponents are performed and docu-mented for the following cases (include identification of each document named):
- a. Failures which result in LERs.
- b. Failures for which a PRO is generated, but which do not result in LERs.
- c. Failures of structures, systems and components which do not result in generation of a PRO.
- d. Failures of nonsafety-related structures. Itystems or com-ponents whose failure can cause or adversely :sffect a transient or accident that significantly challenges structures, systems and components relied upon for the integrity of the reactor coolant pressure boundary, safe shutdown, or accident mitiga-tion.
4 !
P
,I G
h I
Response
?
- a. Failures which result in LER's are evaluated:
I) by the Operating Crew at the time of occurrence based upon:
[
Technical Specifiestions AP 0125 Plant Equipment Control AP 0010 Occurrence Reports / Notification and Reports Due
- 2) by Engineering Support Department during review of the PRO to determine reportability and during preparation of the LER based upon:
Technical Specifications VY Final Safety Analysis Report j
10 C.F.R. 50 NUREG-1022 Licensee Event Report System t
- 3) by the Repair Department and again by the Operating Crew during the repair effort based upon:
AP 0014 Safety Class Determination Instrucdons AP 0021 Maintenance Request Technical Specifications AP 0125 Plant Equipment Control
- 4) by the Technical Services Superintendent and Plant Manager during review of PRO to determine reportability and review of t
the LER based upon:
Technical Specifications VY Final Safety Analysis Report 10 C.F.R. 50 NUREG 1022 Licensee Event Report System
- 5) by the Plant Operations Review Committee during review of the LER based upon:
Technical Specifications requirements AP 0030 Plant Operations Review Committee -
AP 0154 Post Trip Review (if plant trip was involved) j i I t
i i
i i
- b. Failures for which a PRO is generated, but do not result in LER's l
are evaluated.
- 1) by the Operating Crew at the time of occurrence based upon:
Technical Specifications l
AP 0125 Plant Equipment Control j
AF 0010 Occurrence Reports / Notification and Reports Due
- 2) by Engineering Support Department during review of the PRO to determine reportability based upon:
Technical Specifications VY Final Safety Analysis Report 10 C.F.R. 50 i
NUREG 1022 Licensee Event Report System
- 3) by the Repult Department and again by the Operating Crew during the repair effort based upon:
l AP 0014 Safety Class Determination Instructions l
AP 0021 Maintenance Request i
Technical Specifications' AP 0125 Plant Equipment Control
- 4) by the Technical Services Superintendent and Plant Manager during review of the PRO to determine reportability based upon:
P Technical Specifications VY Safety Analysis Report 10 C.F.R. 50
- c. Failures for which no PRO is generated are evaluated:
l I) by the Operating Crew at the time of occurrence based upon:
l l
1 t
Technical Specifications l
AP 0125 Plant Equipment Control l
AP 0010 Occurrence Reports / Notification and Reports Due
- 2) by the, Repair Department and again by the Operating Creiv j
during the repair effort based upon:
~
AP 0014 Safety Class Determination Instructions i r 1
i
?
1 AP 0021 Malntenance Request Technical Specifications AP 0125 Plant Equipment Control d.
Failures of non safety related structures systems or components whose failure enn adversely affect a transient or accident that significantly challenges structures, systems and components relied upon for the integrity of the reactor coolant pressure boundary, safe shutdown, or accident mitigation are evaluated:
- 1) by the Operating Crew at the time of occurrence based upon:
Technical Specifications AP 0125 Plant Equipment Control AP 0010 Occurrence Reports / Notification and Reports Due
- 2) by the Repair Department and again by the Operating Crew during the repair effort based upon:
AP 0014 Safety Class Determination Instructions AP 0021 Maintenance Request Technical Specifications AP 0125 Plant Equipment Control Interrogatory No. 63.
Interrogatory:
- 63. Please describe in detail each and every training module, course l
or segment which trains personnel to perform the evaluation of safety consequence and implications of failures, inoperabilities I
and degradations of structures, systems and components.
Response
On account of the breadth of the subjects referred to, this interrogatory cannot be answered by segregating out discrete portions of the aggregate training effort. The reason for this is as follows:
The evaluation of potential safety consequences and other possible implica-tions of failures, inoperabilities and degradations of structures, systems and components is the responsibility of many different people at different times.
For example, the operating shift is responsible at the time of the failure for evaluating the consequences and responding in accordance with VY. approved procedures. The operating shift would discharge its responsibility using.
among other things, the Tech Specs, the Operating Procedures, system know-ledge, simulator training experience, and the entirety of their experience, both in training and on the job. Similarly, each repait department, the Engineering Support Department, and plant management is also responsible for this evaulation in certain circumstances. The circumstances are described in the response to interrogatory No. 62.
For these reaons, virtually every aspect of the training program might be included in the set called for, interrogatory No. 64, interrogatory:
- 64. Please identify each and every instruction, policy guidance, memorandum, and other document u hich has been operative since January 1,1988, which provides guidance or instructions to personnel performing the evaluation of safety consequence and implications of failures,inoperabilities and degradations of struc-tures, systems and components.
Response
Procedures and instruction that provide the guidance for these evaluations are provided in the tesponse to Interrogatory Nos. 61 at.d 63. Other plant documents which form the basis for those prxedures are included as references in those procedures, laterrogatory No. 65.
Interrogatory:
- 65. Please describe in detail each occurrence in which Vermont Yankee plant equipment has been modified because it has become obsolete, as referred to in Section 3.3.2 of Attachment 2 of the application.
Objection:
Vermont Yankee objects to this interrogatory, on the ground that it appears-to be related only to proposed Contention 6, which was excluded by the Board.
Response
Without waiving,the foregoing objection, but rather expressly relying upon the same, Vermont Yankee provides the following information: )
t Failures of components at Vermont Yankee are not generally classified in this I
manner and YY is not aware of any modifications that can be separately and l
strictly attributed to obt,olescence.
Rather, as is indicated in section 3.3. of the referenced document, obsoles-l cence is one of the many factors that may result in a component (or the i
system of which it is a part) being determined by VY management to warrant replacement or modification.' Other such factors include performance,
, availability, repairability, efficiency, changing standards affecting require-ments and changen sn the availability of product and capability. By itself, obsolescence does nt tend to indicate non function, but rather difficulty (or expense) of maintenance, replacement or repair greater than that that might be experience were other equipment employed. Thus, something may be i
modified or replaced because it doesn't work (because of ' obsolescence" or 1
some other cause) or because there are new or different ways to accomplish a function better.
Generally, " components' are not " modified." The practice is to replace the component with the new component that is identical in fit, form -and function, or to modify the system to install new state of the art equipment that will perform the same function with improved equipment reliability, enhanced efficiency, reduced cost, enhanced function, or some combination of these factors.
l Some examples where obsolescence was a major factor considered during the modification are: process computer replacement, RPS Analog Trip System modifications, Uninterruptable Power Supply replacement.
For other examples that exist, as Is the case of modificat(on, a ' Job Order File" is created to contain the documentation relative A the replacement. These Je Order Files are available for inspection.
Interrogatory No. 66.
Interrogatory:
- 66. For each occurrence identified in the preceding interrogatory, describe in detail how the determination of obsolescence was made.
1 Objection:
1 Vermont Yankee objects to this interrogatory, on the ground that it appears l
to be related only to proposed Contention 6, which was excluded by the Board.
l
- $$ ~
I b
i i
i
Response
Without walving the foregoing objection, but rather expressly relying upon j
the same, Vermont Yankee provides the following information:
Determination of obsolescence is based upori manufacturer's Enformation and availability of replacement parts or components. However, as described in the response to the foregoing interrogatory, a number of other factors have the potential for affecting a decision to replace a component, such as: the
_i efficiency with which a component performs its tasks and can be maintained, the availability of replacements that provide enhanced function, reduced costs or are just considered "better," the extent to which wide use by others of a
';omponent may be likely to insure availability of the component and parts Aerefor at competitive prices, and the like. Such factors might well(and often do) lead to the replacement of a component that has not yet become j
"obsole te."
laterrogatory No. 67, interrogatory,'
~
- 67. Please provide the date and the structure, system and component -
that was meidified for each occurrence in which a structure, system or co.nponent has been modified because it had reach its end of-useful life, as referred to in Section 3.3.2 of Attachment 2 of the application.
Response
l Section 3.3.2 does not refer to the modification of equipment on account of the equipment reaching end of useful life. Rather, that section refers to
" changes"to replace equipment which has failed, become obsolete or reached its end of-useful life." Notwithstanding the foregoing, Vermont Yankee offers the following information:
l There have been no insta:o es where a structure or a system was replace due to reach its end-of-useful life. Vermont Yankee has labelled component failures and replaced components for what we considered end of-useful-life (or at least approaching end-of-useful-life). Vermont Yankee labels failures as end-of-useful life if it less expensive to replace the component l
than to repair it. If repair costs were not a consideration, it is likely that l
very few,if any, cdmponent failures fallinto this category. Some examples l
of components that we have replaced due to what we considered end-of-useful life are:
l
- 56
Piping replacements to address erosion / corrosion or IGSCC:
Recirculation piping replacement Bottom head drain piping replacement Service water piping replacement Equipment replacements:
Reactor water clean up heat exchanger RCIC ll valve motor replacement As discussed in question 65, in each case a ' Job Order File".is created to contain the documentation relative to the modification, repair, or replace-ment.
Job Order Files are retained in the plant document control system and are available for review.
Interrogetory No. 68, Interrogatory:
- 68. Foi cach occurrence identified in the preseding interrogatory, describe in detail how the determination of eni-of-usefullife was made.
Response
Determination of end-of useful-life is based upon careful consideration and evaluation of the following inputs, as appropriate:
- 1) Economics: cost of repair versus cost of replacement.
- 2) Engineering judgment.
- 3) Maintenance history.
- 4) Preventative maintenance.
- 5) Inservice inspections / testing.
- 6) Equipment failures.
- 7) Industry' experience.
. $7
~
t 1
l
- 8) Management directives, Interrogatory No. 69.
Interrogwory:
- 69. Please describe in detail or identify the trend analyses for -
safety-related electrical equipment not covered by the Equipment Qualification Program, referred to in Section 3.4.3 of Attach-ment 2 of the application.
c
Response
Regular trending of electrical equipment in addition to that done as part of the EQ program.
- 1) Batteries Weekly and quarterly specific gravities per OP 4210 gives present state of charge
- 3) Motor Insulation Trends, OP $235
- 4) Failure Trending Program - presently covered components per AP 0200 1
l a) Valves - MOVs and manuals
[
b) Pumps and fans c) Motors - lubrication, bearings, electrical failures, vibration d) Power panels - MCCs and switchgent l
e) Breakers - low, medium and high voltage f) Heaters i
- c) Hi pot d) Start / voltage times t t
l s
i
t
- 6) Station Protective Relaying, OP 4208,4214,4245,4259 interrogatory No. 70.
interrogatory:
- 70. Please describe in detail or identify. the strict. construction procedures referred to in Section 3.4.4.1 of Attachment 2 of the application.
Objection:
t Vermont Yankee objects to this interrogatory, on the ground that it appears to be related only to proposed Contention 6 and proposed Contention 8, which were excluded by the Board.
Interrogatory No. 71.
Interrogatory:
- 71. Please describe in detail or identify the good maintenance.
practices for corrosion prevention, concrete surface repair and protective coating upkeep, referred to in Sections 3.4.4.1 and 3.5 of Attachment 2 of the application.
Response
SOY misreads sections 3.4.4.1 and 3.5 of Attachment 2. The actualstatement is:
'Using good maintenance practices such as corrosion prevention, concrete surface repair and protective coating upkeep, the Vermont Yankee structural integrity can be assured well beyond a full 40-year licensing period."
The good maintenance practices identified in this section are corrosion prevention, concrete surface repair and protective _coatine : pkeep. The accomplishment of these tasks is controlled by AP 002n (Maintenance Request") and completed maintenance requests provide the specifies (trends, acceptance criteria, etc.) of any of these accomplished activities.
3
- $9 -
[
]
m
r i
r laterrogatory No. 72.
Interrogatory:
- 72. Please identify by date all surveillances of containment performed under OP 4115, and all surveillances performed or documented under earlier procedures or methods.
Response
?
Decause of the amount of time required researching this historical data, the search was limited to the time period from November,1986.'to the present.
In the event that SOY wishes to conduct research for earlier periods,'the necessary documentation will be made available for inspection.
Throughout the stated period:
Title Frequency Performed i
t 1.
Quarterly Power Operated Isolation Valves _ Quarterly Operability Test 2.
Drywell/ Torus Vacuum Breakers Operability Monthly Test 3.
Drywell/ Torus Vacuum Breakers Opening Refueling Outage Force Test 4.
Visual Inspection of Primary Containment Refueling Outage l
Drywell Temperature Profile As Required 3
l 6.
Drywell/ Torus Vacuum Breaker Leakage Refueling Outage Test '
7.
Refueling Outage Valve Operability Test Refueling Outage laterrogatory No. 73.
interrogatory:
- 73. Please identify all documentation which exists' for each of the surveillances identified in response to the foregoing inter-rogatory L
l 1
+
t n
e
,ay,,ve-----m-.
I t
Response
OP 4115 and all associated surveillance forms are available for inspection.
Interrogatory No. 74.
l Interrogatory:
- 74. Please identify the coating specialist identified on page 4 of Enclosure A cf BYY 89-69.
Response
i As set forth on page 4 of Enclosure A of BVY 89-69, the coating specialist is Mr. Richard Martin from Stone & Webster Engineering Corp.
Interrogatory No. 7$.
Interrogatory:
- 75. Please describe in detail the technical qualifications (education, employment history, licenses and certificates, experience, or other information which the licensee believes establishes the qualifi-cations of the person) of the coating specialist identified on page 4 of Enclosure A of BVY 89-69.
Response
I Mr. Martin is employed by Stone & Webster Engineering Corp,("SWEC") and is a Senior Engineer and a Protective Coating Specialist in the Mechanical Division of SWEC. Mr. Martin holds a Bachelor of Science. degree in Mechanical Engineering Technology. As a Protective Coating Specialist, Mr.
Martin is responsible for specifying coating and lining materials, establishing -
j and specifying surface preparation and material application requirements, providing technical direction and assistance to coating and lining application efforts, and resolving coating-related problems. Mr. Martin has 21 years of f
experience,10 of which have been with SWEC. Prior to his employment with SWEC, Mr. Martin was a Machinists's Mate in the United States Navy,
.c l
responsible for the operation and maintenance of nuclear propulsion plants.
Interrogatory No. 76.
Interrogatory:
- 76. Please identify the "YNSD and Vermont Yankee engineers" who inspected.the results of the manual scraping effort, referenced on page 5 of Enclosure A of BVY 89-69.
+
- b 1
f
r 1
l
Response
The YNSD engineers who inspected the results of the manual scraping effort were Leonard A. Tremblay, Jr., Christopher H. Hansen, and Daniel E. Yasi.
The VYNPS engineer who inspected the same results was William D. Fields.
Interrogatory No. 77, interrogatory:
- 77. Please describe in detail'the technical qualifications (education, employment history, licenses and certificates, experience, or other t
information which the licensee believes establishes the qualifica-tions of the person)of the'YNSD and Vermont Yankee engineers" who inspected the results of the manual scraping effort, refer-enced on page $ of Enclosure A of BVY 89-69.
Response
Mr. Tremblay is employed by Yankee Atomic Electric Company ("YAEC")
+
and is the Senior Licensing Engineer on the Vermont Yankee Project management staff. He holds a Master of Science degree in Applied Manage-ment and.a Bachelor of Engineering Technology degree in Mechanical Engineering. Mr. Tremblay has 14 years of engineering experience, g of which have been on the Vermont Yankee Project. In his present capacity, Mr. Tremblay serves as the primary interface for Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corporation with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation ('NRR'). In his previous assignment as a Senior Engineer in the Systems Group of the Vermont Yankee Project, Mr.
Tremblay was responsible for all aspects of plant fluid system design and engineerir.g analyses. Prior to joining YAEC, Mr. Tremblay held a variety of engineering positions in the process, petrochemical and nuclear industries in the areas of pump and valve design, piping design and layout, pipe support '
.l design, stress analysis, and test engineering at an Emergency Core Cooling System test facility. Mr. Tremblay is a member of the American Society of Mechanical Engineers ("ASME') and is currently a member of an ASME working group to prepare national standards for performance testing of Emergency Core Cooling Systems in Bolling Water Reactors.
l Mr. Hansen is employed by YAEC and is a Senior Engineer assigned to the l
Systems Group of the Vermont Yankee Project. Mr. Hansen has 16 years of j
l experience in nucle.ar electric power generation stations and 6 years ex-perience as a United States Navy Nuclear Propulsion Plant operator. Prior to joining YAEC, Mr. Hansen was employed by Stone & Webster Engineering-t Corp., where he was responsible for initial plant design of various nuclear
. l i
?
1 9
I i
f sptems and equipment for the Beavet Valley Nuclear Power Station, Unit 2, including the reactor containment liner and coating system. During plant construction, Mr. Hansen was arsigned to the Beaver Valley Nuclear Station, Unit 2, Site Engineering Office, where his primary responsibility was the installation of the nuclear steam supply system equipment and its interface with the balance of plant systems.
l Mr. Yasi is employed by YAEC and is the Lead Systems Engineer for the
[
Vermont Yankee Project. His responsibility include directing a staff of engineers who design plant process system modifications, perform engineer.
ing studies, and provide other engineering support services. He holds a i
Masters of Science degree in Applied Management and a Bachelor of Science degree in Mechanical Engineering. Mr. Yasi has l$ years experience in the
[
nucient power industry, including g years at YAEC.
Mr. Fields is presently employed by YAEC as an Engineer in the Plant Services Department. He has over 12 years of engineering experienw arsd holds an A.E. degree in Mechanical Engineering, in his previous position as a Mechanleal Construction Pioject Engineer at the Vermont Yankee plant site, Mr. Fields was responsible for the implementation of a variety of design projects and supervision of contractor personnel. Mr. Fields was the plant engineer responsible for 1989 drywell and_ torus coating maintenance -
activities, laterrogatory No. 73.
Interrogatory:
- 78. Please describe in detail the results of the inspections of paint scraping activities for drywell and torus, referenced on page 5 of 1
Enclosure A of BVY 89+69.
l t
Response
As summarized in DVY 89-69, initial inspections of the drywell and torus coatings were made by YNSD and VY engineers, accompanied by a coatings specialist from SWEC, on March 17 and March 21,1989. The conclusions i
drawn by the SWEC coating specialist from this detailed walkdown of the drywell and torus were as follows:
l
- 1. Peeling of the topcoat materialin the torus had occurred mostly at the top of the torus and on the top of the vent header where pedestrian traffic I
may have contributed to the failure.
i r
l I l-
+
h
i d
- 2. The amount of topcoat falling in the torus from one outage to the next
.sppeared to be small(as evidenced by the varying degrees of oxidation of the exposed inorganic zine primer). Scraping to remove the loose J
material each outage has prevented the majority of the peeling coating j
(rom falling into the torus water volume during the operating cycle.
1 1
- 3. The exposed inorganic zine primer in the torus was in good condition I
and continues to provide corrosion protection to the steel substrate, j
4.
Failure of the topcoat in the drywell had occurred almost entirely within the vertical section above the upper containment spray ring header, which corresponds to the higher temperature regions of the drywell.'
)
- 5. Approximately 40% of the inorganic zine primer was exposed in the l
upper section of the drywell before the loose topcoat was scraped from j
the surface.
- 6. A large percentage of the topcoat remaining on the wall of the upper j
section of the drywell was loose and could be temoved eas!!y, j
7.
The exposed inorganic zine in the drywell was in good condition, retained a film thickness nominally equal to the originally applied tnickness, and
)
continued to provide corrosion protection to the steel substrate.
- 8. Failure of the exposed inorganic zine primer will not produce chips that could potentially cause blockage of safety system suction strainers.
J The recommendations made by the coatings specialist were as follows:
- 1. Continue removing allloose topcoat material from the torus and drywell on an outage basis.
- 2. Remove as much of the remaining topeoat material as possible, preferably I
all of the topcoat, from the drywell walls above the spray ring.
1
- 3. Allow the inorganic rinc primer exposed by the topcoat removal to remain untopcoated.
- 4. Use metal scrapers to remose the loose topcoat. Metal scrapers will more efficiently and completely remove the loose topcoat than the plastic tools currently used. Effective topcoat removal will require workers be near the surface to be scraped. The use of long reach rods or handles on the l
tools minimizes the effectiveness of the scraping effort.
L I
' j
]
1 l
- 5. Consider the use of power tools to remove the topcoat from the drywell walls above the spray ring. Proper operation and use of power tools is required to prevent damage to the primer.
- 6. Touchup repair damaged areas of the primer as required.
- 7. Touchup repair rusted surfaces in the torus.
The above recommendations were implemented during the March,1989,-
scraping effort, except for the use of a power scraper, which was subsequent.
ly felt could damage the primer coat.
On March 28, 1989, YNSD and VY engineers inspected the results of the manual scraping effort, as summarized in BVY 89-69. It appeared from close.up visual inspection that the scraping efforts were high successful and eliminated virtually all loosely adhering topcoat. Near the top of the drywell, approximately 70% of the topcoat had been removed (30% remain-ing). In the lower region of the upper drywell, approximately 30% had been removed (70% remaining). Overal!, approximately 50% of the topcoat above l'
the upper drywell spray ring header had been removed. The remaining topcoat was determined to be tightly adhering.
Interrogatory No. 79.
Interrogatory:
- 79. Please identify all documents relating to the inspections of paint i
scraping activities for drywell and torus, referenced on page 5 of Enclosure A of BVY 89-69.
Response
- l. Memorandum MES 120/72, H.F. Brannan to A.M. Shepard,' Peeling of l
Paint in the Torus," 2/25/72.
- 2. Memorandum M'E 76/75 J.R. Hoffman to L.H. Heider,' Vermont Yankee Torus Paint Samples," 3/3/75.
- 3. Letter MEG 452/80, YAEC to O' Conners Associates Engineered Product, Inc., Subject ' Carbo Zine !I Paint,' 7/21/80.
- 4. YAEC Report #1409,'Drywell Temperature Evaluation,' 2/1/84, i
- 5. Memoranduct VYS 25/84, L.A. Tremblay to A.C. Kadak,2/17/84.
l
, i
)
v
- 6. Memorandum VYB 84/216. R. W. Burke to A.C. Kadak,2/7/84.
- 7. Memorandum File i1.0, R. J. Gianfrancesco to W.L. Wittmer,1/9/84.
- 8. Letter NYY 86 33. USNRC to YYNPC, ' Inspection Report No. 50-271/85-40,'2/20/86.
9.
Letter File 2.1, D.A. Reid to R. J. Lodwick," Service Request - Drywell Paint,' 1/16/86.
I
- 10. Memorandum OPVY 289/86, R. L. Smith to R. J. Lodwick,3/17/86, with attached evaluation, Memorandum VYS 46/86, C. Hansen to S.R. Miller, 3/11/86.
f
- 11. Memorandum VYB 86/414, R.I. Lodwick to S.R. Miller,
- Disposition of SR 86 08, 'Dryw-ll Paint,' 5/21/86.
- 12. Memorandum VYB 89/130, D.K. McElwee to S.R. Miller, " Service Request 89 Drywell Paint issue," 3/17/89.
/
- 13. Letter, J.O. No. 18973.00, R.L. Martin (Stone & Webster En8ineering 1
Corp.) to YAEC, "Drywell and Torus Contin 8s,' 4/4/89.
- 14. Memorandum OPVY 250/89, R.L. Smith to D.As Reid, 'Drywell Paint issue Resolution ' 4/5/89, with attached Memorandum YYS 32/89, L.A.
Tremblay to S.R. Miller Containment Paint Evaluation,' 3/31/89.
- 15. Memorandum VYB 89/165. D.K. McElwee to S.R. Miller,' Disposition -
l SR 89-16, Drywell Paint lasue," 4/6/89.
l
- 16. YAEC Report #1696, ' Evaluation of Containment Paint De8radation Effects at Vermont Yankee,' L.A. Tremblay,3/89.
- 17. Letter NYY 89-126. USNRC to YYNPC, ' Inspection Report No. 50-271/89-80,*6/2/89,
- 18. Letter BVY 89-69 J.P. Pelletier (VYNPC) to USNRC,' Vermont Yankee Response to NRC Request for information Re8ardin8 Condition of Drywell Paint (Inspection Report 89 80),' 7/1/89.
A r
I 66 -
i i-
l l
Interrogatory No. 80, j
interrogatory:
- 80. Please provide a description of the design of the strainers for the r
core spray, RHR, HPCI, RCIC pump suctions. As part of your l
description, identify all drawings and specifications that exist for the screen mesh of each.
Objection:
+
Vermont Yankee objects to this interrogatory, on the ground that it appears to be related only to proposed Contention 6, which was excluded by the Board.
Response
?
Without waiving the foregoing objection, but rather expressly relying upon the same, Vermont Yankee provides the following information:
The subject strainers were specified on GE Drawing No. 729E253 (VY Drawing File No. 5920-42) and on CB&l Drawing No. 233, Contract No. 9-6202,' Torus Penetrations"(VY Drawing File No. 6202-233), as follows:
'The following stainless steel strainers shall be constructed of woven wire to ASTM A478-63 TP 304 and/or plate material to ASME A240 TP 304. Each strainer shall pass the respective flow and head loss requirements as shown above. Strainers may be of cylindrical or conical shape and sized to' screen out particles greater than 1/8' diameter.'
The flow and head loss table referred to is reproduced below; j
Flow Penetration (spm) l' Head Loss X-224A & B 17,300 per 17,300 spm X 225 4,250 per 10,000 gpm X 226A & B 4,500 per 4,$00 gpm
[
X-227 400 per 10.000 spm i
I !
l f
l r
k
Field verification done for CALC-VYC-417 describes the strainers as 'l/8 in, holes on 3/16 centers", indicating plate material was used. The strainers are truncated cone shape.
l The RHR suction strainers were later replaced with cylindrical shaped strainers. The strainer material is plate with 1/8* holes on 3/16* centers, duplicating the original. These strainers are shown on Drawing No. 5920-6764.
Interrogatory No. 81.
interrogatory:
- 81. Please identify the procurement specifications for the core spray, RHR, HPCI and RCIC pumps.
Objection:
Vermont Yankee objects to this interrogatory, on the ground that it appears to be related only to proposed Contention 6, which was et :luded by the
- Board,
Response
Without waiving the foregoing objection, but rather expressly relying upon the same, Vermont Yankee provides the following information:
The original procurement specifications are as follows:
t P
9 9
9 r h
I a
L
1 1
J G.E. Spec. No.
Title Microfilm 21 A1079 Standard Requirements for AuxiliarySteam 36 746-Turbine Drives (HPCI) 21 A1079AC Auxiliary Steam Turbine Drives36-764 21A1063 Standard Requirements for High Pressure 36-708 I
Coolant Injection (HPCI) Pumps 21 A1068 AL High Pressure Coolant injection Pump 36+72$
2lA5822 Reactor Core Isolation Coolant Pump 36 2490
- General Requirements 2] A$822 AF RCIC Pump Data Sheet 36-2507 21A5840 Auxiliary Steam Turbine Drives 36-2612 21 A5840AJ Auxiliary Steam Turbine Drives 36-2630 21 A3300 Centrifugal Pump - Mechanical Seals 36 2630 21 A3300AB
' Core Spray Pump 7-36 21 A3300AE Residual Heat Removal Pump
$/35 i
Interrogatory No. 32, interrogatory:
- 82. Please state the manufacturer, model number and year of purchase for the core spray, RHR, HPCI and RCIC pumps.
Objection:
s Vermont Yankee objects to this interrogatory, on the ground that it appears to be related only to proposed Contention 6, which was excluded by the Board.
Response
Without walving the foregoing objection, but rather expressly relying upon -
the same, Vermont Yankee provides the following information:
The service, manufacturer, model number and original year of purchase for i
the subject pumps are listed in the following table:.
L
i I
t l
Service (Date)
Manufacturer Type /Model GEPOw l.
l CS Bingham-Willa-12x16xl41 205-H0371 (9/17/68) mette CVDS RHR Bingham-Willa-.
16x18x261-205 H0922 l
(11/7/67) mette stage CVIC p
L HPCI Byron Jackson 10x12x15 2-205-H0457 (9/9/67) stage DYMX
- i RCIC Bingham Willa-4x6x9B MSD 205-H0470 (8/3/68) mette 5-stage Note: Purchase order dates do not necessarily reflect dr.te of manufacture or date of delivery.
. i Interrogatory No. 83.
Interrogatory:
- 83. Please state the minimum net positive suction head for the core spray, RHR, HPCI and RCIC pumps, Objection:
Vermont Yankee object 5 to this interrogatory, on the ground that it appeats to be related only to proposed Contention 6. which was excluded by the-l Board.
Response
Without waiving the foregoing objection, but rather expressly relying upon the same, Vermont Yankee provides the following information:
l The minimum net positive suction heads for the subject pumps arc provided in the following table:
e
?,
l t
e e,
s
.. -..a
.,s,--,--~~
1 Service Pump Serial No.
NPSH CS 280418 24' @ 3,000 gpm 280419-24' @ 3,000 gpm RilR 270839 26' @ 7,200 gpm 270840 26' @ 7,200 spm 270841 26' @ 7,200 spm 270842 26' @ 7,200 gpm wHPCI 671-S-1187 15' @ 4,250 spm @
4,000 rpm 671 S-1192 52' @ 4,250 gpm @
4,000 rpm RCIC 270609 20' @ 416 gpm @
4,500 rpm Interrogatory No. 84, interrogatory:
84 Please identify all references documenting the minimum net positive suction head values stated in response to the forgoing interrogatory.
Objection:
Vermont Yankee objects to this interrogatory, on the ground that it appears -
to be related only to proposed Contention 6, which was excluded by the Board.
Response
Without waiving th'e foregoing objection, but rather expressly relying upon the same, Vermont Yankee provides the following information: -
i The references used to obtain the minimum net positive suction head infor-mation provided in the foregoing response are set forth in the following table:
Service Pump Serial No.
' Reference CS 280418 Bingham Pump Co.,
Curve No. 27691 280419 Bingham Pump Co.,
~
Curve No. 27692 RHR 270839 Bingham Pump Co.,
Curve No. 28567.
270840 Bingham Pump Co.,
Curve No. 27922 l
.270841 Binghao Pump Co.,
Curve No. 28469 t
l 270842 Bingham Pump Co.,
Curve No. 28470 HPCI 671-S-1187 Byron-Jackson, Curve No. T-30057 l
671-S-1192-Byron-Jackson, Curve No. T-30040 l
RCIC 270609 Bingham Pump Co.',
Curve No. 26679-i Interrogatory No. 85, interrogatory:
i
- 85. For all minimum net positive suction head acceptance tests which were required or performed for the core spray, RHR, HPCI and RCIC pumps, state:
- a. The date of test.
4 l
- b. The test organization.
- c. The test report title and test report number,
- d. The test specification or procedure by which the test was performed.
- e. The date upon which the licensee or licensee's agen't approved the test specification or test procedure.
Objection:
i Vermont Yankee objects to this interrogatory, on the ground that it appears to be related only to proposed Contention 6, which was excluded by the Board.
Response
Without waiving the foregoing objection, but rather expressly relying upon the same, Vermont Yankee provides the following information:
P
- a. The subject pumps were tested by their respective manufacturers and certified pump performance curves provided for each. The tests were witriessed by the buyer's representatives. The information provided from these pump curves and data sheets from the P.O. files is as follows:
l 1
1 i
I-l l
1
.I"'
,',j,,,,
System:
- Pumps, App. Date Test Date Test Organization Test Report Test. Spec.
CS:
280418 11/20/69 Bingham Pump Co. T-280418 SP-15 11/03/69 280419 11/24/69 Bingham Pump Co. T-280419 SP-15 11/03/69 RHR System:
270839 07/13/70 Bingham Pump Co. ~T-270839 SP-15 1I/03/69 270840 02/09/70 Bingham Pump Co. T-270840-1 SP-15 11/03/69 270841 06/24/70 Bingham Pump Co. T-270841-2 SP-15 1I/03/69 270842 06/26/70 Bingham Pump Co. T-270842-1 SP-15 11/03/69 HPCI System:
I 671-S-09/30/68 Byron-Jackson T-29994 TP-4020 1187 07/lI/69 671-S-10/09/68 Byron-Jackson T30040 TP-3020 1192 07/1I/69 RCIC System:
270609 02/28/69 Bingham Pump Co. T-27609-1 SP-15 N/A 4 !
i l
e 6
Interrogatory No. 86.
t interrogatory:
86 Please describe in detail all quality assurance and quality control inspection requirements for the tests identified in the preceding interrogatory.
l Objection:
Vermont Yankee objects to this interrogatory, on the ground that it appears i
to be related only to proposed Contention 6, which was excluded by the Board.
Response
Without waiving the foregoing objection, but rather expressly relying upon the same, Vermont Yankee provides the following information:
The quality assurance program in effect was described in detail in the original FSAR, Appendix D. In addition, the procurement specifications for the subject pumps (identified in the response to Interrogatory No. 81) placed specific requirements on the seller with regard to inspection and testing and documentation. Each of the pump specifications required that the pump performance be tested in the seller's shop to demonstrate that it fulfilled the requirements of the specification. Performance tests were to be conducted l
In accordance with Hydraulic Institute Standards with at least five points being tested, including full capacity, shut-off and 125% of capacity.
Required documentation typically included pump performance data, includ-ing curve of total head, NPSH, horsepower at operating conditions and
[
efficiency, all plotted as a function of flow. Access by the buyers's represen-tative to all testing during performance as well as final inspection before shipping was also typically required. Certified pump curves (identified in the response to Interrogatory No. 83), witnessed by the buyer's representative, were provided in accordance with the specification, laterrogatory No. 37.
l Interrogatory:
- 87. Please identify all documents which established the requiremerts described in response to the foregoing interrogatory.
3 [
. j; p
.i-t 1
Objection.
Vermont Yankee objects to this interrogatory, on the ground that it appears j
to be related c@ to proposed Contention 6, which was excluded by the Board.
i
Response
Without waiving the foregoing objection, but rather expressly relying upon i
l the same, Vermont Yankee provides the following information:
i VY FSAR, Amendment il (1970).
GE Specification No. 21 A3300, Centrifugal Pump - Mechanical Seals.
i GE Specification No. 21 A1068, High Pressure Coolant Injection Pump.
GE Specification No. 2t A5822. Reactor Core Isolation Coolant Pump -
}
General Requirements.
GE Quality Control Plan No. 281. General Q.C. Plan for Residual Heat Removal Pumps,01/05/67.
Interrogatory No. 88, Interrogatory:
- 88. Please identify all quality assurance and quality control inspection l
reports and documentation, and reviews of test results, for the tests identified in interrogatory 85.
t Objection:
Vermont Yankee objects to this interrogatory, on the ground that it appears l
to be related only to proposed Contention 6, which was excluded by the l
Board.
Response
i Without waiving the foregoing objection, but rather expressly relying upon the same, Vermont Yankee provides the following information:
This information is set forth in the following table:
5
System:
j
- Pumpm, Pump a
Apa Qate Test Date Test Organization Test Report Curve j
CS:
J 280418 11/20/69 Bingham Pump Co. T-280418 27691 12/17/70
?
BinE am Pump Co..T-280419 27692 280419 11/24/69 h
12/17/70 RHR System:
270839 07/13/70 Bingham Pump Co.. T270839 28567 07/24/70 270840 02/09/70 Bingham Pump Co.' T-270840-1 27922' Not legible 270841 06/24/70 Bingham Pump Co. T-270841-2 28469 07/13/70 i.
270842 06/26/70 Bingham Pump Co. T-270842-1 28470 07/13/70 HPCI System:
671-S-09/30/68 Byron-Jackson T-29994 T-29994 1187 t
12/09/70 671-S-10/09/68 Byron-Jackson
'T30040 T-30040 4
i 1192 l
12/09/70 l
RCIC System:
270609 02/28/69 Bingham Pump Co, T-27609-1 26679 N/A 4
6 e
' i b
t
B Interrogatory No, Fo 4
interrogatory:
- 89. Please provide the available net positive suction head for the core spray, RHR, HPCI and RCIC pumps.
Objection:
t Vermont Yankee objects to this interrogatory,' on the ground that it appears to be related only to proposed Contention 6, which was excluded by the i
Board.-
3
Response
Without waiving the foregoing objection, but rather expressly relying upon I
the same, Vermont Yankee provides the following information:
Net positive suction head available ("NPSHi')is a function of the pressure on.
the surface of the water being pumped, the static head due to the difference in elevation of the water surface and the pump elevation, friction losses'due to flow in the suction piping which is a function of flow and piping and -
a fittings losses, and vapor pressure of the water which 'is a function of temperature. There is, therefore, not a singular value for this parameter.
In addition, in the case of the RHR system, there may be modes of opera--
'f tion with either one or two pumps operating from a common suction line.
Also, pump flows will be dependent on discharge resistance and "back--
~
pressure."
Since the conditions under which this parameter is to be determined are not.
stated in the question, the question cannot be definitively answered.
7 Some values from existing documents ce provided in the following table:
i L
l.
l-
- i
t l
i Typical NPSH, Values System (Source Reference)
NPSH Conditions i
-3 Core Spray.
(!)
34.2'-
147'F water @ 3,000 gpm RHR (1) 31.I' 147'F water @ 7,000 gpm (2)-
26.3' 165'F water @ 14,000 gpm.
HPCI (3) 52.5' 100*F water @ 4,250 spm (suction
[
from CST).
l
. Source
References:
(1) GE Calculation "VY LOCA DEBRIS" DRF No. 100-1713, Section '17.32, 01/10/86.
(2) PDCR 76-04, Enclosure E, Supporting Calculations (at 207),
(3) Letter VYB-1058, EB ASCO to General Eiectric' Company 10/27/68 (Sheet 16).
Interrogatory No. 90.
Interrogatory:
l
- 90. Picase identify the calculations which support these < values,-
including calculation title, date, number, and perform.ing or--
j-ganization, j
Objection:
Vermont Yankee objects to this interrogatory, on the ground that it rppears to be related only to proposed Contention 6, which was excluded by the-Board.
Response
f Without waiving the foregoirig objection, but rather expressly relying upon the same, Vermont, Yankee provides the following information:
The information requested appears in the response to the foregoing inter-rogatory..
1,.
\\
h t
i l..
Interrogatory No. 91.
' interrogatory:
j 1;
r
- 91. Please state-the size of the largest particle or debris'which the ccre spray, RHR, HPCI and RCIC pumps, respectively, can pass.
Response
i Based on the strainers described above, the largest solid.that the pump is required to pass is 1/8". We have not located any documents identifying the maximum size solid that the pumps are capable of passing.
Interrogatory No. 92.
'l Interrogatory:
- 92. Please describe in detail *Se bases for the sizes of particles identified in response to tl.e previous ' interrogatory,'
.t
Response
See above.
- Interrogatory No. 93.
Interrogatory:
i-
- 93. Please identify all documents which support the bases described in response to the foregoing interrogatory.
(
Response
- See above.
Interrogatory No. 94.
Interrogatory:
- 94. Please describe in detail the original licensing basis for the coating system in the drywell and torus.
Response
None. The licensing basis for all plant systems is provided as set forth in the responses to Interrogatories Nos 6 and 9.
The original FSAR did not '
(
.~
l (L
j l
specifically state a licensing basis for the primary containment coating system; however, the coating system tends to act to protect the primary 2
containment interior surface from oxidation degradation so that no other measures are necessary 1:a order to account for the effect (if any) of such
- degradation on the ability of the primary' containment to meet its design l
l basis. Presently, the FSAR (page 12.2-16) states:
I l
"All interior and exterior drywell surfaces which are exposed to the f
l atmosphere are protected from corrosion by application of a corrosion resistant coating material."
It should be observed that corrosion protection was originally thought to be l
a potential concern before the time the VY containment became inerted. A collateral effect of the inerting of the containment is the preclusion of the corrosion process during most circumstances, t
Interrogatory No. 95.
Interrogatorv:
- 95. Please describe in detail the current licensing basis for the coating system in the drywell and torus.
Response
Please see the response to the foregoing interrogatory.
p Interrogatory No. 96, a
l Interrogatory:
- 96. Please explain each and every reason why the topcoat was applied '
I to the drywell and torus,
Response
The topcoat was applied to provide a hard, relatively impervious outer coating.
to.the~drywell and torus interior surfaces to make decontamination efforts easier should the need arise. However, the topcoat does not play a part in meeting any safety design basis for the Primary Containment System as stated in the FSAR.
l L,
~,
Interrogatory No. 97.
Interrogatory:
- 97. Identify all document references for:
- a. Originallicensing basis for the ccating system of the drywell,
- b. Originallicensing basis for the coating system of the torus,
- c. Current licensing basis for the coating system of the drywell.
I
- d. Current licensing basis for the coating system of the torus.
-l
Response
See the response to Interrogatory No. 94, l
i
-i laterrogatory No. 98.
i interrogatory:
i
. 98. Please identify the code or standard which governs the coating' requirements for; a.
The drywell.
l
}
b, The torus.
Response; a.
None. However, the following guidance is used for touchup:. Keeler
& Long, Nuclear Technical Bulletin NTB-6, " Protective Coatings Systems for Nuclear Power Plants" ( October 1985). (Meets and incorporates ANSI N5.9-1967, N101.2-1972, N101.4-1972 and NS12-1974.)
- i
- b. Same as above.
Interrogatory No. 99.
interrogatory:
i
- 99. LER 86-04, at page 2 of 5, identifies a review of maintenance requests. Please describe in detail the method by which -this review was jonducted.'
s 1 j t
l l
1 4
________,________.___m
s
Response
9 The review referred to in LER 86-04, p. 2 of 5 was' conducted by review.
ing the maintenance history cards for any possible work which may have -
taken place on the circuitry in question! This review provided reference to'-
specific maintenance requests, which were then obtained and reviewed. The-l review is documented via the YYNPS Commitment Tracking System (AP 0028).
Interrogatory No.100. -
Interrogatory:
100.
LER 86-04, at page 5 of 5, identifies a departmental review of surveillance procedures. : Please describe in detail the method this review is documented.
Response
The review referred to in LER 86-04, p. 5 of 5 was conducted by depart-ment personnel cognizant of procedural changes who reviewed their respe-ctive department's surveillance procedures for any possible changes needed.
This review is documented via the Vermont Yankee commitment ' tracking :
]
system (AP 0028).
.i Interrogatory No. '101.
-)
i interrogatory:
101.
On page 5 of ~5 of LER 86-04, it is stated that "further assurance" is provided for systems which cannot be tested 1
online by a " closer look [at) drawings and procedures."
a.
Please describe in detail how this " closer look" is reflected
)
in procedures.
j
- b. Please describe in detail how this " closer look" is'docu-
- mented, j
Response
- a. The " closer look" referred to a specific review of surveillance proce-.
dures, system drawings and drawing control methods that might have been subject,to similar factors as those that contributed to the events described in LER 86-04. As a result of this " closer look," additional procedures and policies were revised. Among other things, the pro-cedures now require a pin-to-pin continuity check of the firing -
' i a
t i
device prior to installation. The term " closer look' referred to this specific review effort and is therefore not reflected 'in any specific l
j procedure.
1.
i-
- b. Documentation of this as well as all other recommendations associated with this event are documented through Vermont Yankee's commit-
[
ment tracking system, laterrogatory No.- 102..
l Interrogatory:
.102.
Please identify all the Vermont Yankee personnel with whom LRS Incorporated personnel spoke during Visit #3-88 of October 10 -13,1988.
Objection and Request for Protective Order.
Vermont Yankee has been informed as follows:
?
It is a standard procedure with LRS Incorporated to maintain the confiden-I tiality of personnel reports to LRS. This method of operation is to ensure-employees of Vermont Yankee feel free to speak' up without any possible concern of adverse effects upon their employment. Vermont Yr,nkee has agreed that this method of operation' contributes to.thi effectiveness of the independent review'and thereby=the safe operation of. Vermont Yankee.
1.
1 I
Based on the foregoing information supplied by LRS Incorporated, Vermont Yankee objects to this interrogatory and, to the extent required by the Rules of Practice, requests a protective order concerning the same.
4 1
Interrogatory No.103.
Interrogatory:
103.
The report of LRS Incorporated. Visit #3-88, con page=7, contains the following statement
" Generally, the operators do r.ot feel that Vermont i
Yankee pays sufficient heed to their desires for=
hardware repair and replacement."
Please identify the LRS Incorporated employee (s) who conducted this interview and reported this statement.
o
=
\\
i
.3
Response
Charles M. Rice and Richard C. DeYoung.
Interrogatory No.104.
Interrogatory:
l 104.
Concerning the statement from the LRS Incorporated Report cited in the preceding interrogatory, please identify the operator or operators who held this view.
l Objection and Request for Protective Order:
-- l Vermont Yankee restates the objection and request for protective order set forth in the response to Inte.rogatory No.102.
l Interrogatory No.105.
Interrogatory:
105.
Describe your program to determine any significant aging mechanisms for the structures,-systems and components of the Vermont Yankee plant, other than harsh environment equipment covered by 10 CFR 50.49.
Response
l The Vermont Yankee program to determine significant aging mechanisms !s encompassed in the VY Maintenance and Surveillance Program. This program has been discussed in the response to Interrogatory No.14. The 3
key parts of this program with regard to the determination of significant 1
aging mechanisms are AP 0021 (" Maintenance Requests"),'AP 0200 (" Main-1 tenance Program"), AP 0028 (" Operating Experience Review and-Assess-ment / Commitment Tracking"), AP 0310 (" Surveillance,' Presentative and 1
Corrective Maintenance Program"),.VY Users' Guide Root Cause Analysis,-
Corrective Action ~ " White Paper," and management oversight of these programs. VY also participates in industry information exchange through -
i NPRDS, which provides information on like components from other plants, i
Additionally, VY has been following.the efforts of EPRI, at the Rowe and l
Monticello plants. These efforts reveal that most majcr power plant equip-'
ment will typically function reliably and safely for 70 years or more.
1,
i s
o
4 Interrogatory No.106.
Interrogatory:
L i $6.
For your program to determine any significant - aging
'~
mechanistas for the structures systems and components of the Verment Yankee plant, other than harsh environment i
equipment covered by= 10 CFR 50A9, please identify the criteria that are used for determining if an aging mechanism-is significant.
l
Response
I li These criteria are established in part based on the input from the procedures and guidance identified in the response to the previous in'terrogatory. A qualified engineer reviews this information and performs an evaluation-to
]
disposition,.and establishes corrective actions in response to the findings a
identified by the procedure (such as trends in AP 0200,' failure causes in AP
+
0021, and the~like). The significance of the degradation is established by the ~
engineer in this evaluation by the review of the aging' mechanism (for instance, corrosion), the rate of degradation, if any, and the function of the component, as established by the licensing basis, it should be noted that the concept of " significance
- is subject to misinterpre-tation. An aging mechanism could,' at least in theory,' be significant from a safety perspective because of its potential, if uncompensated for, to render a component non-functional. Typically, aging mechanisms have not been
{
l determined to be significant from this perspective because of the ability of L
regular inspection, surveillance and maintenance programs to detect and correct such effects. An aging mechanism can also'be significant from the perspective of cost, and in particular avoidable cost, if, for instance, a-component is exposed to an aging mechanism from which it might be cost'
~
3 effectively shielded, or if a component is subject to an aging mechanism to
- [
which a different component equal in function is immune, j
Interrogatory No.107.
s interrogatory:
107.
Please state all bases for the criteria identified in response to the previous interrogatory.
Response
Adherence to the licensing basis, which establishes the significance, from a safety perspective, of all degraded components is the basis. >
5 a
e
.w_,
1-3 1
w i
I$
i l
Interrogatory No.108.
Interrogatory:
F8.
Please identify all documents on which you rely for each basis stated in the previous interrogatory.:
' Response:
L The documents relied upon have been previously identified in the responses
+
to Interrogatories Nos. 6,61,62 and 63. -
Interrogatory No.109; interrogatory;
'f 109.
Identify your program policy directive and implementing procedures for qualifying safety system equipment other than those equipment covered by 10 CFR 50.49.'
N
'l
Response
Interpreting " qualify" to mean the process by which it is determined that an item of equipment satisfies the'specificatidus to which it was procured, the implementing program is YOQAP-1 A. -The specific proced' res-depend.
7 u
upon the nature of the equipment, and can be determined by applicatio~n'of, YOQAP-1-A. The procedures that implement. the requirements.of.the l
Yankee Atomic Engineering Manual are set forth in Attachment 109-1.
i q"
Interrogatory No.110.-
interrogatory:
[{
110.
Please provide the full statement of the entire basis that you' rely upon for claiming'that there is reasonable' assurance -
(within the meaning of 10 CFR 50.57(a)(3)), if you so claim, that the paint undercoat (primer) of the drywell and torus will '
remain intact in the extended period,:and that the metal-surface will be protected. In addition, provide the following:
- a. Identify each and every document:upon which you rely for -
this assurance.
- b. Identify and provide the technical qualifications of any person on whose expertise you rely for this assurance.
l l
-l a
i l k
a i
o i
4
\\
l8 9
Response
By its reference to 10 C.F.R. 6 50.57(a)(3), SOY implies that there exists a legal requirement of the reasonable assurance stated'in the interrogatory..
i Vermont Yankee is convinced that, as a statement of law, this implication is'.
incorrect, and therefore it is not able to respond to the interrogatory precisely.
L as framed.
Nonetheless, VY has a high degree of confidence that the ability of the t
primary containment to meet its design basis requirements will not in the' future (either during the presently-licensed period of operations or the requested additional period of operations) be' impaired by any effect of' s
interior corrosion. ' The reasons for this high degree of confidence are asL follows:
The recent evaluation by the SWEC Coating Specialist (see the response to-Interrogatory No. 79, Reference 13) states that the paint undercoat (primer)~
is " sound, adherent, and snominally at the originally applied thickness, l
Corrosion protection of the shell and decontaminability are provided by.the exposed primer? This same evaluation states that " Vermont-Yankee's; de:ision not to reapply topcoat material'over the inorganic zi6c primer is appropriate? Continued adherence to plant procedure OP 4115 (" Primary; Containment Surveillance") will ensure that the primer coating is maintained.-
1 Since VY procedure requires inspection ~each operating cycle, any finding of i
corrosion is evaluated and repaired in timely fashion.
In addition, a side benefit of a nitrogen-inerted containment is that any.-
potential oxidation of the containment surface is essentially precluded, since l the containment must be inerted by Technical ~ Specifications during plant operation, j
a.
See th'e response to Interrogatory No. 75.
I
- b. Mr. Martin of SWEC. Reference 13 was prepared by Mr. Martin, whose qualifications are stated in-the response to Interrogatory i
No.75.
Interrogatory No.111.
Interrogatory:
l 111.
Inspect. ion Report 89-80 (June 2,1989) contains the following statement; y
i
---g-e*e
/
e
.w
.,e.
w
IE l -
l "The licensee stated that the paint peeling problem has been evaluated.... the analysis of the paint chips indicated that the paint pieces will break up
- into fine pieces, so small.'that they will pass through the pump suction screens and core spray nozzle without causing clogging."
Please provide the full statement of the entite basis that you rely upon for claiming that there is reasonable assurance (within the meaning of 10 CFR 50.57(a)(3)), if you so claim,-
i l.
that peeling paint in containment will break into small pieces -
so small they will pass through the pump suction screens and.
core spray-nozzle without causing clogging. In addition, i-provide the following:
l' Identify each'and every document upon'which you rely for a.
~
this assurance.
1
- b. Identify and provide the technical qualifications of any' person l
on whose expertise you rely for this assurance.
l
Response
t The evaluation of paint chip transport is provided'by a March 31, 1989, YNSD evaluation (see Response to Interrogatory No. 79, Reference 14). This -
evaluation concludes. that, due to a' variety of factors (time,1 transport mechanisms, relative densities, plant geometry) the probability of significant paint chip transport to the ECCS suction strainers in the torus is very low.-
However, for paint chips that do find their way to the ECCS suction strainers, the evaluation concludes that there would be no 'effect on ECCS-pump operability. Failed topcoat. has primarily occurred at. the upper elevations of the drywell. The failed topcoat that has been inspected was found to be extremely brittle. During a postulated LOCA' scenario, failed'-
topcoat would fall from high in the drywell through'a-torturous path of.
J piping and equipment and under turbulent conditions to the floor of the:
drywell, up into the downcomers, and then into the turbulence of the torus water volume. Due to its very brittle nature, any topcoat that found its way -
to an ECCS suction strainer 'would be reduced to particle size. Some paint particles would become impinged on any NuxoN fibrous insulation that also may have found its way to the suction strainer. The ECCS suction strainers are sized to accommodate such a loss in NPSH available. Particles that did not become impinged on NuxoN insulation would pass through the small mesh strainer and would be reduced still further in size by means of tur-bulent flow through the pump impeller. The remaining particles would not t
pose a threat to blockage of Core Spray Nozzles, and would not affecit LPCI operation in any way since LPCI flow is provided to the reactor vessel as an injection flow and not through nozzles.
. 1 s
t lf
-.--~,-
t l
l l
. Reference 14 was prepared by Messrs. Tremblay, Hansen and Yasi, whose L
qualifications are set forth in tht response to Interrogatory No. 77, laterrogatory No.112, interrogatory; 112.
Please provide the full statement of the entire basis that you I
rely-'upon for claiming that there is reasonable assuranet l
- (within the meaning of 10 CFR 50.57(aX3)), if you so claim, that drywell paint failure in the extended period will be in the s
form of small chips which have a higher density than water.-
In addition, provide the following:
a.
Identify each and every document upon which you rely for this assurance.
- b. Identify and provide'the technicalqualifications of any person on whose expertise you rely for this assurance.
Response
By its reference to 10 C.F.R. I 50.57(aX3), SOY implies that there exists a legal requirement of the reasonable assurance st'e 'i in the interrogatory.
Vermont Yankee is convinced that, as a statement on law, this implication is incorrect, and therefore it is not able to respond to the interrogatory precisely as framed.
a For confidence that the chips will be small, see the response to Interrogatory No. I11.
Confidence that the chips have a higher density than water is ' based on data-
- from the SWEC report (Reference 13' identified in the response to Inter-i rogatory No. 79) and from the physical testing discussed in reference 14 identified in response to Interrogatory No. 79.
't
- b. See above.-
i i
Interrogatory No.' 113.
interrogatory:
113.
Please provide the full statement of the entire basis that you 7
rely uppn for claiming that there is reasonable assurance l!
(within the meaning of 10 CFR 50.57(a)(3)), if you so claim, that the comprehensive and formal maintenance program :
l f
,h
l
-i lo i
document identified in BVY 89-75 is effective for providing clearly ; documented objectives, policies, responsibilities.
authorities, programmatic controls, and comprehensive and structured reviews of Vermont Yankee plant maintenance t
h requirements, at present, and for the extended period..in I
addition, provide the following:
a.
identify each and every document upon which you rely for this assurance.'
- b. Identify and provide the technical qualifications of any person on whose expertise you rely for this assurance, l'
[
Response
l '
Vermont Yankee does not so claim. Further, the SOV is in error if it i
believes that this cited document, standing alone, could provide the stated'
" reasonable assurance." The conclusion that. Vermont Yankee activities authorized by the operating license, including the activity of performing required maintenance, were capable of being accomplished with " reasonable assurance" within the meaning of 10 C.F.R. 50.57(a)(3)(i), was established-when Vermont Yankee was granted its originallicense. All subsequent safety evaluations issued and inspections by the USNRC have continually supported ~
this conclusion. In fact, Vermont Yankee has continuously demonstrated the i
L correctness of the finding that VYNPS is capable of being operated without-i endangering the health and safety of the public, within the meaning of 10 L
C.F.R. 50.57(a)(3)(i), over la years of safe and successful operation,' without the cited document.
The production of the comprehensive and formal mainten'ance program is simply an effort to clearly document the effective maintenance practices that already exist at Vermont Yankee. As is clearly. stated in the Maintenance i
inspection Report (IR 89-80), Vermont Yankee's Maintenance Program at the time of the inspection was found without qualification to be " effective" in :
accomplishing its purpose and thus provided the required level of reason-q able assurance. This was without a," comprehensive and formal" main-tenance document. The effectiveness of our maintenance' program is demonstrated by a number of independent parameters, including: 18. years of demonstrated successful operation, with a measurable improving trend in i
l plant availability and capacity factor, independent assessments performed by others including the NRC, INPO, YNSD, QA audits /surveillances, inspection Report '89-80, after taking into account all of. Its subsidiary findings, concluder.that " Vermont Yankee is implementing a generally
~
effective maintenance program." Sections contained in the body of the report
.1 conclude that "The licensee has implemented an adequate p.rogram,"" Vermont
' P l
Yankee has developed a maintenance program that implements the significant elements of the inspection tree." In BVY 89-75, we committed to develop and implement a comprehensive and formal maintenance program document to ensure continued good performance.- That document has been developed.
We are continually assessing industry initiatives that would further enhance our programs. Vermont Yankee has a commitment to continuing independent ~
assessments by internal and industry groups. Our demonstrated commitment to safety provide added assurance that.our programs will continue to be effective. Evidence of our commitment to continually improve exists'in -
many places including the 1989 NRC SALP Report which states:
4
" Continuing management attention resulted in improved maintenance i
and surveillance programs.
Strong performance in: these areas s
occurred and demonstrated a strong commitment to maintenance of
'q plant systems. Management routinely demonstrated a conservative _
approach to maintenance issues."
Vermont Yankee further believes that the " comprehensive and formal maintenance document" will function as expected based on the historical performance of Vermont Yankee and the fact that the document was pro-
-)
duced to simply capture the existing and successful maintenance practices in 21\\
place at Vermont Yankee in a formal document.
J
- a. See above.
[I
.a
- b. See above.
Interrogatory No.114.
Interrogatory:
114.
Please provide the full statement of the entire basis that you rely upon for claiming' that there is reasonable assurance -
(within the meaning of 10 CFR 50.57(a)(3)),'if you so claim, that the Computerized Maintenance Material Management System, identified in BVY 89-75, if implemented, will be i
effective for its intended use in the maintenance program in,
the extended period. In addition, provide the following:
- a. Identify each and every document upon :.vhich you rely for d
this assurance.
- b. Identify and provide the technical qualifications of any person on whose expertise you rely for this assurance.
~,
4 1
L
~$
! 4
?
I
\\
-il3 'i
.~
?
t
Response
By its reference to 10 C.F.R. i 50.57(aX3), SOY 1mplies that there exists
- a legal requirement of the reasonable assurance stated in the interrogatory,
. Vermont Yankee is convinced that, as a statement of law, this implication is c
incorrect, and therefore it is not able to respond to'the interrogatory precisely L
as framed.
As stated in the documents enumerated in the response to interrogatory No.' 17. VYNPS is examining the potential development of a CMMMS. The actual scope, expectation and supplier are not yet determined and, conse-;
quently, no claims regarding the system can be (or are) made until such time as that process is completed, i
l We add only that, if and to the extent that the question implies a notion that the function that might be performed by CMMMS can only be'per-
[
formed by CMMMS, the question-is misinformed.
t-Interrogatory No.115.
interrogatory:
- 115.
Please provide the full statement of the entire basis that you rely upon for claiming that there is-reasonable assurance-(within the meaning of 10 CFR 50.57(a)(3)), if you so claim, E
that a maintenance staff, with the requisite nuclear skills and '
6 knowledge, can be retained in-the extended period, addition, provide the following:
~
' in-I a.
Identify each and every document'upon which you rely for this assurance.
(
- b. Identify and provide the technicalqualifications of any person on whose expertise you rely for this assurance.
Response
2 i
By its reference to 10 C.F.R. Q 50.57(a)(3), SOY implies that there exists a legal reqairement of the reasonable assurance stated lii the interrogatory.
Vermont Yankee is convinced that, as a statement of law, this implication is l
incorrect, and therefore it is not able to respond to the interrogatory precisely' as framed.
~
l Nonetheless, Vermont Yankee has no doubt (which, apart from legal implications, we use to. connote even less residual uncertainty than is-W i
5 I
!\\
connoted by a term such as " reasonable assurance") that a maintenance staff possessing the requisite skills and knowledge to' continue to operate Vermont Yankee iti the safe and efficient manner that it has been operated in for the last 18 years can be retained and maintained. This confidence derives from the foll6 wing considerations:
Vermont Yankee pays competitive wages within the state and within the '-
nuclear industry. We participate in annual state and industry wage surveys to ensure that salary levels continue to attract and retain qualified workers.
Vermont. Yankee provides a comprehensive land competit ye fringe l
bf:nefit package for employees. A portiongof our benefits ytogram is designed to foster retention of employees by building in vested benefits' j
based on years of service.
According to Vermont Yankee employment records, our turnover rate in -
I Maintenance occupations is very low. The average turnover rate of our Maintenance Mechanic staff for the five year-period between 1985 and 1
1989 was 2.26%. The average turnover rate of our Instrument & Control j
Technicians for the same period was 4.6%. Both rates are indicative of:
i a very stable workforce.
Employment records for theiMaintenance Staff indicate that over 70%~
i of the individuals hired in the 1985-89 period were from the locallabor I
force. This promotes stability and retention over the long run.
l The volume of applications for maintenance positions is currently more -
than sufficient to meet our needs. In 1989 alone, we received over 215 applications for Maintenance and Instrument & Control positions. -
i cl
~
The Vermont Labor Market Bulletin (2d Qtr.1989) published' by the Vermont Department of-Employment and Training indicates. 7,270' applicants in the state of Vermont seeking work with skills lthat appear to meet the needs of VY and 795 statewide job openings for these appli-~
cants.
Contrary to the implication of this aspect of the contention, the positions in question do' not require an applicant to possess nuclear-specific l
education or training, or specific educational qualification (e.g..~ college 1
degrees) the absence of which forecloses entire sets of persons from performing maintenance responsibilities superbly. We have confirmed with the author of the Nucleonics Week piece to which reference was
" i i
i
1 l
J l
made in the contention that such workers were not within the scope of
' the concerns she intended to raise.
Ja. Any documents specifically used in the preparation of this answer will be made available for inspection upon request.
L
- b. In responding to this interrogatory, Vermont Yankee has relied
}
l upon the collective experience and judgment of its management, l
most of which is believed to be non technical in nature, as well as upon the stated conclusion of the author of the Nucleonics Week article in question that the article had been misued'and misinter-I 1
l.
preted by SOY in its contention.
. interrogatory No.116.
l r
Interrogatory:
116.
Please provide the full statement of the entire basis that you rely upon for claiming that there is reasonable assurance (within the meaning of 10 CFR-50.57(a)(3)), if you so' claim, that trend analyses will determine - decreased L equipment -
reliability and expected (design) life in the extended period, in addition, provide the following:
i a.
Identify each and every document upon/which you rely for this assurance,
- b. Identify and provide the technicalqualifications of any person on whose expertise you rely for this assurance.
Response; t
By its reference to 10 C.F.R. I 50.57(a)(3) SOY implies that there exists a
(
legal requirement of the reasonable assurance stated'in the' interrogatory.
Vermont Yankee is convinced that, as a statement of law, this implication is
(
incorrect, and therefore it is not able to respond to the interrogatory precisely as framed.
/
3 Vermont Yankee does not claim that tredding alone will" determine decreased
~
equipment reliability and expected-(design) life in' the extended period."
Further, SOY is in error if its believes that trend analysis, by itself, could provide the stated " reasonable assurance." The conclusion that the activities L
authorized by the VYNPS operating license are capable of being undertaken-with reasonable asstrrance of no danger to the health and safety of the public 1
were established when VY was granted its original license and demonstrated -
1 h
i
.,m.
1 i
i l
ever since, and the nature of this conclusion is not changed by the operating period extension at issue, j
-Trending at VY is done in accordance ;with AP 0200 (" Maintenance Pro--
J' gram"), Appendix E ("Haintenance Department Trending Program"). The Maintenance Department trends equipment degradation, repetitive corrective maintenance of equipment, and probable cause of failures per Appendix E.
Input to the trend program may come from AP 002) (" Maintenance Re -
l quests") and ' AP 0028 (" Operating Experience Review and Assessment /
Commitment Tracking"). The' results of trend evaluations are reported to the Maintenance Department Supervisor by memo along with all supporting -
I documentation.
Trend analysis in general can provide insights into the reliability of equip-ment, if (and only if) this information is used in conjunction with other.
f efforts, such as reviewing the way maintenance is performed,~ recognizing the limits of the particular design of a component and taking into account the :
continuous flow of technical information regarding potential problems with similar components at other plants that is available from the industry. All of this information must then be analyzed by knowledgeable people and if these people believe a potential problem exists, the specifics of the failures.are reviewed, and an assessment with corrective action recommendations is sent-to the Maintenance Supervisor. The Maintenance Department Supervisor is ^
responsible for dispositioning' these recommendations.- lVermont _ Yankee =
upper management is informed of any adverse results of these trends though the Maintenance Supervisor.
l Trending analysis at Vermont Yankee is generally ' based on conservative limits with conservative safety factors applied. Trending analysis has led to 1-UPS replacement, Service Water System upgrade and battery replacements.
Vermont Yankee also reviews the efforts of the industry inLimproving analytical techniques and has recently enhanced its program using some of.
these improved techniques.
We add only that, while we have high expectations for the benefits of the trending analysis now, heretofore,-and to, be in thel future employed at VYNPS, we do not claim that trending analysis is the only means by which the maintenance function is capable of being performed, that any failure of our expectation regarding the efficacy of trending would translate into a '
failure of the maintenance effort, and that therefore the ability to have
(
continued reasonable assurance that VYNPS is capable of being operated' without endangerin's the health and safety of the public.
q
- a. See above.
96 -
r--aw w
rw
+
,-e w
- +,
1 l
l
\\
\\.
l l-1 L
- b. The individuals of the Maintenance Department Engineering Staff.
l Interrogatory No.117.
Interrogatory:
117.
Please provide the full statement'of the entire basis that you l
rely upon for. claiming' that there is reasonable assurance
'(within the meaning of 10 CFR 50.57(aX3)), if you so claim, j
that all components with design lives less than Vermont:
Yankee plant service life will be determined, and replaced, requalified or upgraded. = In addition, provide the following:
i a.
Identify each and every document upon which yo'u rely for I
this assurance.
- b. Identify and provide the technicalqualifications of any person:
on whose expertise you rely for this assurance.
Response
i Vermont Yankee 'does not believe that there is any requirement,'either for the present application or.in general, of " reasonable assurance" under 10, l-C.F.R. 9 50.57(aX3)(i) with regard to whether such events will occur in the I
future. Vermont Yankee does believe that there is a requirement under 10 C.F.R. 0 50.57(aX3)(ii) that the regulations promulgated by the Commission that address this topic, such as 10 C.F.R. 6 50.55a(s) and 10 C.F.R. ( 50.49, will be followed.
The capability of Vermont--Yankee to be operated without danger to the.
public, within the meaning of 10 C.F.R. 6 50.57(aX3XI) was established during the granting of Vermont LYankee's original ~ operating license. That.
finding was not then, and is not now or at any other time, dependent upon s any assumption regarding the replacement or other amelioration of the exhaustion of design life of components. Indeed,~ the fact that some com-ponents will not last for the duration of the plant's potential service life was anticipated by the original designers -and by the Commission during the granting of Vermont Yankee's originallicense and acceptance'of the Techni-cal Specifications.
The: Technical-' Specifications provide the " limiting conditions for operation" which govern the plant responses to equipment in-operabilities.-
This interrogatory assumes that " design life" tracking is the exclusive means.
]
by which age degradation is controlled. This assumption is not accurate. To some extent," installed life" tracking is employed: In each case for 'which a -
]
i replacement interval has been established for a component, bassd on vendor information, YY-specific or industry experience, or other information, an appropriate schedule for the replacement of the component is established within the maintenance program (VISI records), and such' replacements have been and continue to be carried'out on a routine basis. LHowever, the philosophy of such programs as inspection, surveillance and ~preventat ve' i
maintenance is that exclusive reliance is not placed upon " design: life" tracking. Further, industry programs have shown that many components are -
capable of lasting much longer than their original specified " design life" with -
no loss of safety margin.
Thus, once the capacity of Vermont Yankee to be ' operated safely is es "-
tablished, the degree of assurance required that the steps that:may' be necessary or helpful to the. achievement of that capacity is a matter of Commission ~ determination (as to legal requirements) and Vermont Yankee-determination (as to engineering requirements). The former is supplied by.
such regulations as 10 C.F.R. i 50.55a(g). The htter has been continuously'
~
supplied, and modified as appropriate, by Vermont Yankee, and is reflected 1
in the aggregate of the plan: procedures, including but_ by no means limited i
to the procedure for routine replacements described above.
Vermont Yankee has a demciistrated history of successfully implementing these programs. Inspection Report 89-80,' the 'NRC maintenance team inspection, concludes that:
l
" Vermont Yankee is implementing a generally effective maintenance program."
Sections contained in the body of the report conclude that:
wt "The Licensee has developed a functional work control program."
7 "It was apparent that the staff and management appreciate the role that judicious predictive,' preventive and corrective maintenance play-in overall plant performance."
" Vermont Yankee has developed a maintenance program that imple-
[
ments the sigr.ificant elements of the inspectic': tree." -
"The failure trending program under development will probably
[
contribute significantly to the improvement: of-the predictive.
maintenance program."
t Vermont Yankee is committed to continue to maintain effective ISI/IST programs in accordance with the Federal regulations. We are continually I
assessing industry initiatives that could further enhance the effectiveness of -
7 o>
I L-
our programs. This, along with independent assessments that will continue to occur and our demonstrated commitment to safety provide a high level of confidence that our programs will be effective,
- a. See above.
b,' The person (s) on whose expertise we rely on for this assurance are the employees of the company.
Interrogatory No.113.
Interrogatory:
I 118.
Please provide the full statement of the entire basis that you.
rely upon for claiming that there is reasonable assurance f
(within the meaning of 10 CFR 50.57(a)(3)), if you so claim that the maintenance and surveillance program in the ex-tended period will be effective in limiting containment leakage to the leakage limits in' the ~ current licensing basis, in addition, provide the following:.
j a.
Identify each and every document upon which you rely for this assurance,
- b. Identify and provide the technical qualifications of any person on whose expertise you rely for this assurance.
Response
- 1 l
The requirements of 10 C.F.R. 6 50.57(a)(3), insofar as they are applicable to containment leak rate testing,'are met by compliance with the require-ments of 10 C.F.R., Part 50, Appendix J, which is the applicable substantive Commission regulation on this subject.
l The Vermont Yankee Containment Integrated Leak Rate Testing Program j
has been determined to. meet the requirements of 10 C.F.R., Part 50, j
Appendix J, and is implemented by OP 4029 (" Type A-Primary Containment Integrated Leak Rate Testing"). The activities are performed under the control of the Type A Test Coordinator, who is an individual experienced in performing containment leak rate testing In addition, following each test, a comprehensive test report is submitted to the NRC. This report is reviewed to ensure that the applicable requirements and acceptance criteria have been.
met in each case. Prior to performing the Type A test, all personnelinvolved are trained by the test coordinator in all aspects of'the test and the test procedure. Finally", Type A tests are typically monitored by NRC inspection personnel.
j
-i i
.;-j
4 h
t i
n.
See above, i
i b.
D. L. Phillips, Test Coordinator, qualificatiott avedAbit J. M.
DeVincentis, Test Coordinator, qualifications available.
i Interrogatory No,119, t
interrogatory:
119.
Please provide the full statement of the entire basis that you l
rely upon for claiming that there is reasonable assurance (within the meaning of 10 CFR 50.57(a)(3)), if you so claim, that age-related degradation of active and passive mechanical-components will be identified and corrected by the inservice inspection / testing L and. maintenance ' program, ~ and - that a
component functional capability will be maintained, in the extended period. In addition, provide the following:
3 a.
Identify each and every document upon which you rely for this assurance, i
l' b.
Identify and provide the technical qualifications of any person ~
on whose expertise you rely for this assurance.
Response
Please see the response to Interrogatory No. I17, i
We add only that, implicit in the question is the notion that the measure of.
the " reasonable assurance" that VYNPS is capable of being operated without '
endangering the health and safety of the public is exactly equal to the degree; j
of confidence one has that functional degradation will always be detected at precisely the right moment, on a one-for-one, component-by-component, y
basis. This is not so. For a host of reasons, including system redundancy,.
function redundancy and design defense in depth, the compound degree of -
confidence that VYNPS is not incapable of being' operated safely is.far higher than finite degree of confidence one has in any one of the contribut-ing factors to that overall confidence. SOV's use of the regulatory term -
" reasonable assurance," therefore, is in VYNPS's. view, incorrect. Our 4
l response does not endorse, and -should' not be taken as endorsing, either I:
SOV's apparent interpretation of the applicable regulations or the philosophy of nuclear power plant licensing that the question implies.'
a
- a. The following are the principal documents relied upon to provide thisi j
i assurance:
1
- 100 -
]
J
l l
L Vermont Yankee Inservice Testing Program.
I Vermont Yankee Inservice Inspection Program.
l
~
AP 0021 Maintenance Requests.
I AP 0028 Operating Experience Review and Assessment / Commitment Tracking.
AP 4000 Surveillance Testing Control.
b T
U
.I.
3
,p,..
-t j
L:
t.,.
.. w.. : s.,:..
, :. ;.. n..
w s
v
,a,
... +
~:...
~
- y. g.: a
-,... ) -. a n.. -
c
- -.r 9 u,
9 a
- . w.
m a
-we v,. p, sr.... -..
s 4,,,..
r,,.... _,,A.
.e
- e. :.
e r,. H..
" < aa =6
..*4 r
o
~4 e,
^
m.e. n. k.1 y. 4
^
v 1
Ap 0;; *,.r.
? ;s :
H 7,c An d. O c.E w P :K;* f, y
- m I14p s 4
j;
.,....!.,.f..
-q.. w. w ; m.. e. g.a n...,.
s,
.. e.~
3 e-. u,.,
=
..o r
')-
',ar-MMPORARFM"4 M'.AT!D.Ef 76 721 J1 *
- i ' "
A:.X c.
- I
- g.ure m i..
- .1,.., "
s t
g_
.p 4-4
.... (. 1, '
e4 -
.,,9
{ *f; i%!4 4, I.6
. (- #,d,. _ Ih. t;,,.,, r e -
..,5=
=t
--~
A g. 4 3,', / *6 97*i g
1 S
J m, ;...,.<=. :.A t,
4 i
4
/.7 cors t id W n.
F.
- P C m ' ;wEs:
112 ? !a t :r.
4,a. m. : ins ;;,..;
e s.
~..,..
.s w..
.v
., a.. -. c
-..,s,.
., v,. o -
eni.. J, o.+, e,., A n.,, r....
- r. -.
n q,,u 1,... :
w
. m...... +
. #. u e.
t 1-t O. c.l i
- u
' NycLcw NELOW uf I".c,i PF J
..,4..
- . s. +
+
s
.i ty AP 0026 1I-OPERATING E MERIENCEFFEVIEk1AND Mf; W '. 4 %
AESESEMENT: Gr*M LTPENT TF 'a." <!NL W22 ) i w.
(csic W p :;.
k AP CO.1C 11-THE plt.S' 0F~ %T D.E s'EV!ER CCMMITTEEj_.
i C : f:.*. i d C 5 &
r Q. ;f. n j e Q =..,
o.,k.
DA 0001 l'
NUCLEAP E AT.T!REL.;ASkLI'W' DATA C hi& P m s vii~r ;W RtW
.cin "r :=;-
t 5,,ts...
. 4..
DP10015 I
.! DEN 7tr'Mt.TICN/CONTFDL:GFJ45FET@CL/j5J Mc0 $ 1M Nr OR~EAFETf RELATED? M ATEo ! ALiiv ot.4 T S/
40EJC4.t1521-AP. 01.I51 l1
.FLANT CGtllFMENT L-;CNT'tCL
. Oi/IZ/ p H c.
4$.f *a* $../ 1 '$ j, m 4
(,
TAP-Q140-
' 10 '
VEFMONT YANKEE LOCAL 'CNTFOL SWITCM.NG
,LG5/02/i::;
-4
~
4ULEi
-05/CIct't.
"3
..-..i.
w s MN 14 m,.
5:
twvI r W u. T +..CL. n EC u-D-- i.Ee.e-N# :
sv-/ u e t.....
V t
c
. *e
, ;. e
.'t..
4 L
- (
?
OACC$$bOE EE/
".**,U, CA*'
N V M b..-,'
- 1....
EP t.
e t..
- g. W wee L g,g.
3,
. r-
.e nEpp..--.
.,.,.1
. c,.
+
.'.'.C 4.? %.1 "
J *, ' s. *
- sg *...L.'
'9 *
- Ie~~
7
,.g
,4
- , J 3
.e e
t'
- s *; 4.
^'
j4. *(.
i
+:.
., t ?, 6'.,
'*i,**4'
~w
4'. &
- i ; *
~
I '* ' *.
- ;,, < p, i +
e.
t
[..,
4a.
. *,.,.,,, ; 4 * *= =
- y e g :..L*.
- n
.y n
.a
.1,.
..,,4
.w z.-. c..~
..e.i.
m g. ~., ~
e. -.
nE,, U s : o.. AN '- TEEr E q, I t iv..
' S ' I t < 17. ".
~,
...t, vP 6>..
....:..v.,
,,e: e nu. eu -..s..
.%..s c.,. s, :
s,
- a. :,
r e. : ; >,,
.g t, - aIOC 1
w 1N e *.:.:..
- pt.)2..w,
.*4,: 1,ev 4;
A-
,a..'..
g.
m s..,-..
c
..,. n := x.,,4 y.
- x.. ;:. 4 7 T P.;. o,'
c
'v E e E. c I '.
?E.t (.AIPMEN'
'.> I.
- G - 1 ;
s
.s-v-
w
, ; a K.
st e...,.g. 3.. E 3a,. :,.-
- , T r... I.,
.....-.~..,
- r.. r
.c c.
.. i..,
i.m
.Q. U I.,r.A..
.c..
,- < 1......
..P Oi' M-7, USE QF Ll:T*NG FA.1FMEN'7 0 W.2 3, AF E Oe. M t i' * :
- e. HUT "wC'
',4'
- _9..' '. F M 5 '.' '
^ '.. * ' '. : '.
,s:
- r. a..,.>
1 I N S E R V.' r. ;..
A...',.',',
.' ~.:. 4. '. t. n'.'.
s*4t' MEASUREENTY 01:1A; it',*.
AP 0300 to EQUIPr'ENT n!ETOR/ : M.r u ! i i.
OC:I? 14F
.vs..
e=
OP O2Ci 12 C AL I B Fe.+ ; 0N AND C ::nr"C' OF ?EASURING AND O s I "' 1 4 & 4 TE5T EQUIFMENT i M -'
- F Ci, 'I' - 13 : ;
DF 0307 10 CALI3PA~ ION OF i : DEF AP T*aE'.T TEET 01'15c14'?:
EQU:FMENT 01 i I S, l 'r : *.
AP 03O?
S I / C DEP AF TMENT EN'J !' 4.'NMiNTAL 00/11/1 W.
QUALIFICATION (EG: Math *ENANCE AND O e / 2 0 / 14 4 '.
nu., Ve.,,., Au. v... i M /,,.-
F.,.,, M r
e
- rv3, AP 0310 5
3UR VE ! U. ANC E, PR E'. EN T A T : VE AND COPRECT1:.'E MAINTENAN;E $A0M AM 0 % 04)14'"
mP 03.-
O n G. U I t M c..,,. inw.hN I..
. kr.... F +. 10 4
.... s. 4..m.: -
.s v e-
.v
e p-t 4
r p.
U E Gi. SE-OC(
E
!!40Ef2A E;
.NUMSEL P
- *!TLE CE'. !EW. :: ATE <
..,v,e
- C P 031 '*.,.
EQUIPME'"JiERV!CE-L! E:74AO IN4 co 3'
f&
..r..,--
.e 1
~
4* e;..
. w.. 4tg:U.*]
a
(
,p u,
n p.
. g. -
.; a,:
.,,.s
'9 P
s g
_g
.. r.
.r rt~
,a 1-4 1
-q..
y r r.:
y.;
a
(;.g. : v. '
,,e
>,, e e, 4
.4
...,. ~u.,,., n.
. - 4 f. r,..
-. i
.,.7,y
.;c...e.
,. " s.
. in e.:
...,.~,..,E.4...
s
.,:....,-..,._,4u.
. v..,.
4,.
,u..
+
e..
, gf r...... ;., ;cy b,;.;O'.; pac gi
- tc:? Ich 1* E 7' As e,n
'0'IO,(1430 n-p.:t a. i 2
WOBV T.t.V ! RCNMENT E :
05/23/14CC
... t.
- 1..,...
..a 1
.i....
- e. v e
.r r.,
vg...
+,.....:........,...,,
hEb,..,.
..r....,....,
.4.%
.v
. g. c 1
T1-t'On.-I:.. cEN M ACTORf!? ShVTDOWf; 111 e IIi 1 : X
..t 1,
f 4,1:
- <a t.
scid,. J.,9 ;c i INC IDENT 4EPCR T51 M!?'? L1:#F Q,13.d va..,
y i &
A; O13, 2
AL8.R i" LEt'ENTAT!ON F06;CEilGN CH81GE.57 9 dec i:U AND wCN - AW.L. ? IE
%1/ I sd :# 15 3
CP 0 0 '.' 0 2
RADIAT!CN PROTECTION DEP A 7ENT 02 *db l**;
$URVEIL' ANf,.E TECHEDULING' An 13,*14 1 AP 0.5I0 7-
.CHEMICAt. MANFlau 00NTFDLL
....,,..a.' E i :
1 ; ?s2, l'-
s y s..u
.0P.Co25 1
CHEMIC AL CLEMING50F THE T3CCW: HEAT CSe17.1c!:
?
m EXCHANGEPE-
' 0 5 / 1 7 f *. 2.'. 1' AP 0700-6 VERMONT v ANKEE $TAFF' TP AINING Ot./1;/1*WC'
' ca t 111 M:p 4
. n AP;071; 2
LICEN:C-C.:EFATOF'CONTINVING' 04 /2? / ME TPAINING' l'
-'04 /IS/1 * :Ci
+
an AP. 0"15:
8.
NON-LICENiED 0FEFATORiTRAINING=
112/10/1's' 12t101t w :
.e w/23
'3-TRAINING.FCR UNESCORTED AC'ESS-
>'11/19/1**"
4 31/19/ F? -
O
^
JAP?OS01-et m
19 RECEIVING AND SHIPMENT CNNATERIAL=
11D15/199%
- 3. :
s 4
4 y.
t s
j 1%
+
.s 6
a 1
'i g
'k 1
(
P M ECUf*E' FEI
!t QE LATEc e
NUMBER w.
'*1TLE FCVIEW: CATE a* m..g
%=
., p *c g &. +. + aa L.
g.
p ;stait.4.
- 11 3ev g e..* e t.
Vr;
%. c),,,.
.,...c t
4 2.t,a e.
t sg.
4,,
e t.. '
s*..*J... ~ ;.,
L A ?...
4
- 7 y.,.. ; * * '.-
6 t.,
- f. e*
1*/.'
- A J. ? a.
- 4..
,7.@ 1 *4. ' '
,,,, 3.ie.
- 4. ?
ANQ. >[ *9 A Y ' 1 y-(4
- 4
- ,t' p.
- i.. g.
t, i c
+
-a
. y ;.
- v.
- ., ; Ee.*, ; A...i i g'ME
'3 f 'e
"* M "l V 4 i-g;y-s ei
...h-7:
s
~. ' '.
..-; t v
+
M;'
. -k o
.. L. ' e g A
.s
-rs.
+ - +
s
., ;- g '
- ?' 4 l-
,7 s, J,.
"JtN s
o s
.4.*...i c..,
+,
.,t.,,....,
,e.. ae.t.f. =
.g
. a.,,.. *,
... _..,j..
a
.l..m,.
- s. ' '. * *.
w t.. o 3 t, + 1
. "; f.
,,..c i., W..
.t ; t.-
- a+ r.t
- s. t A m. t,qA *.' d.p 4 a. -
- *,'.=, A,"
- q +
s 1
s.,,.
' y s <, s c i 4 : r~. -
,.o.s su...q q t.
- 'a3? ' u. r.~.; c.i ;, r. - s ?. p.'.:'.tq s ; *p.
..,r
~
s.- -
u m.. a., e.,. 4, g g o,..
- n. p 4 3 r..
, 3. -
p,.,,.. c_
+.s n g.y.m< m..
- p..a.
, ; d. 4-ogs,... tL.
j., /
..u.
.13 x...
4w o <-
.a a.. 3..3...
4
. a,
, 1 s.,
t-A.....,.....,J...
.. t r e.
,.., 3
. r.
7.::.L. 7<-
- ,.c
.. ar
.-2-t
,..w.... u ::.. ~. n.n,. 4 - e.u s.
...:.........,.t
-n
.m... R ~ r.a., n,,. ~.,
u m,s.,..
.a OP 1 7. w.
13 Wu rMi*n Dr THE R54CCRbESW 0 ~ *y l i 1 :t p tie r a E.r. r, y, p 3rgy,;ter q
s
.t
.3 m,
n.3
.CFa....
,L'SYS,+c Ms-
.--r.2 E st!' s 4
,.. M g.
-.< - +
r, 0
m.,1 3..R i.c.4
, i c.
v., w e#1,,..
4 CP-1400 I Fs JUEL 'ECEIFT AND. P A EL INr;An 2 bANDLING '
lG4tE5/14;?
f Q, 4 4 e 9
- d.
. - J e.
OP. 1 101 17 NEW FUEL-!N5FECT!CN AND <rW.NEL'ING N10/1970 '
M '*s Q i W i.-
."1-CP 1402 11 CHAldNEL INEFECTION, Oerg;/194
- 04,*29/14 '.
CP 1 ACE 10 FUEL'EUNDLE1NON-DEETFU.'TIVE TEETING?
- 05t 20/1M PECONET; N
05/20/14 4'Tc 1
DP d404
.1 -
FECEIFTi!NSFECTIGN1CFfCCN7 dL PCD-03 ES/1A *f, ?
BLADES-n.;O1/ Igf 14;;[ * <
s OP 1406
u s. s, s...".3.....
.,..i
~~
OP--1410-i16 FUEL LCADING-12;CEv19.c; j
-i 12/OS/14: 1-I i
- OP;1411 10' CORE VEFIFICATION OI/2EIN
.. a
= g ** ? ** p' g *, k
- t..
u{b n
<.f, I
'6?
1
'aat
.~
/<
- s tc-i 4
3-
[' 5
. h f
3 s
1
' +
1
.o 1'
y
.s;.
- t
.1 E E Ct EDU?EL TEV -
tEEVE DATE NUMBER 71Tr.E.-
REv!EW DATE
. op. :.112 6-
- JET % M '. W ML ~AAM!r.AitCN 03.isf14:0
- 6. %. A *
- s-.
C." i s ; *,
.I V i st/l.s E_ /?
1 2.
- la' 'k ; ; ";. L A *JE. l'
' * ~~ ; J. -., 2 a. 4
,4 t. * ;.* d,..
.Tt*
-'. A -
- . 7. s.
- 7. :' -,
-,., 9.. t s.. '
. 'a ' _, 0
- a e
- M-
' ll, l 4,.
.+
,a 4
+
r
..,. v
.y *_.u.
l.,.,
lC
+,.s 3
- -., a..,
- e.,.
.L 5-
..,: -, ;. n.....
- r...,, pg. ;.... - - <
+ 7 ' ;.* ] 7 *,,
V,
,ay.+.
/
,y
.w..,
y *..2.
- L,
..K a O l '.. * ?.
4..w a,-
s.
. wJ.J; t
. p.
2
..i
- g 4,.,.., w
- t. w.
.4 p<.m t +. ee.
4 j =
..e
.. o. 4,,, w...,,c
. rf:
+
M
.,. c
,.w..
, e..
g.......4.. : :f.:..-..
4.., g g-.; r a..
- m. g.
,a.2..p-o.
.. r 4
<,.. v., O......
- 3-OF 40gi
+L AN " '. c E O T 4 % s ] isEt.:. % M t; w,,ta; 7.
/
'OP 40;4
! N IT.",F:: ' < h hE L LAtCE *F ' ;RELDETE'TCv ;
34 7 AUD' ec * :%y it T. iitv5
- CP 4014 1
SUR'.E :.. u.;E W y:T& :!RE; itARR !EF E CE '? E tou ca / M ; t it. ;
0F.m D:
) ~'
IVr,E:ar,N;E CF v'4E PR;TE0* ION' c m. ;,, c,, s. 3,,.-
<. t s =
. w, w, \\.,..
CF 4025 S
- ItaiEW.;0E ;NSFECT10N Ci _ ; 1 ).1 F'. -
- 3.,.,.,. g, :.
u..
<1 09 402i 2-
- PREBSUAE EDUNDM k REPAIT #2dCEDVRE 04/04/194*'
042ccit44t-OP 4020 5
ADS ATR ivFa'* ACCumvLA"OR:iURVEIY ANCE:
C U25f;4?c 1
01FLSttn=\\
CP 402' 5
TYPE-A.
- RIMARY CONTAINMENT" INTEGRATED' <027 $r1**C-LEAK RATE TESTINO-Q2/th t4 i.
6 s.
CP 403C 16-TYFE 2 f,fC C J FRIMAR Y - C O N T A I U M E N T-L E A K :.
/
8 TATE TESTING:
c0R,d hi ?*C:
f OP 4100-
- 15 '
ECCS INTE W ATED AUTOMATIC INITIATION 02 71 f f 19*f TEST-
'02/15/192T' OF 4101' 22 RPV OFEaA*IONAL-MDRO TESi
' oc/ int %5 t 09 /I * /1 *M -
OP 4102 19 REFUEL CUTAGEQUEL MCEMENT' PERIODI";
'12/1S?taic' TEST:a L os'> te/1 *:.
CPf4103 FIRE FACTECT!CN-EGU NMENT)-
N.
r
.ig.'
,h l c
t i
y r-
\\
p a
e i
f'i FFOCEDUCE
- 8~k li st.E OATE '
D NUMBER ITLE
- E'. i EW DA'E P.,.1 e t F t.
w.s
. c. c
...s n. T w.x
,.t.
L tr E i..
-.. v.
L 1,
- ,,.,.q
...s..
. s,
.. w,.:
a..,. ;.w,a e
v.
t
.v.N-s;,
~
w
- i 4 j N '- r '., M _. :
.?-
1
?..
.. ;.* e.
x
.n,,
4.* -
e t.
..j. m.-.
A.t'
. A. v:
.s w~..
t
. t s.
i CF 4 : 1 *;.
.e "AD a;'.. / : ! ArO ' 3 7 E V. i h ** E a
.. 4 *. 1 * ** L Mv
,. x,:E-
' Al l <; 12 : '.
CF 4 t ;.;
"C,.
C a.n;. : -
- t:': 20N?tCL Y v r EM 12.110/12.*4
,,, u i t v......
....7
., ~, -.
.i CF 41:'
I3 F R ! "'J.*
- CNTAiN* INT s t.#.'il s;AN C E -
11.'-! ? /18E8 j.4 /Qe,/14 *(
-t CP allt 3E;Q'ds r ' !CNT AINPENT. e 5' JVd LLANCE-01/14/186'-
04, t= /142,:
CP 411" 11 ITAN00 Jai "T*EATYENT SvD EV'
~
s;
'D. % K ! t..tM E
~ QS: 13l1 NC.
OF.412C 21 n ! Ge-FAEifVFE COOLANT INX;~10N Svi!EM '
- 1.? IQ1 f ;,
CMM I L;. AN C E
'tC,C3/122*.
09 4222
~4!
EACTC#
CSE ISO:.AT!0N CO L;NG iYSTEM-0 2 b:,1/ l u ;.
EUPVEs. ANCE-05/01/ 1 9 E.
OP 41R 13 AUTO OL% LOWN =E'vE7EM 5;.RVEI LANCE
. s, c ;..,. ; :, ,.U 13 1
r
' CP 4123 19 CORE SFFAY15YSTEM GURVE L:; AbCE.
Id ;7/tcS: '
00fI?r14 :
CP 4124 26 RESIDUAL MEAT REMOVAL 3 D ER ?ERVNE' ONINin'.
WATER 5YSTEM'EURVEILLANCE 10/;.$/ l e ;;
OP'412S 9
CONTA.INMENT ATMOSPHERE DIL~~' ION 55TEMt
~01,;4Y1*F'-
$UPVEILLANCE C4 / 06/1 *%
3
. OP'4126-23 DIEEEL.GENEFATORE SURVEILLANCE-l11/1621* N
- 09/Eo /1c:c.-
OP 412" 4
,./O H N DEEFE DIESEL GENEPATOR l ' /16/1'i H
- i
$URV?!L.ANCE.
- 11/le/14 M 1N-SERVICE? TESTING FOR'THE *RIMARY AND" 3 02/05t !"C OP 4140 10
, SECONDARY LINE CARRIEA AND."ICROWAVE/ ~
7?/14 / -1
- ',t.
LINE C ARR IER TR ANE8 EF ' TF IP EYSTEM.
OPJ4142 1
VERNON. TIE SURVEILLANCE-07 /24/1 M,
i 10.?] IE n4 7. *.
.+...
ng 1
u,
+
a..
g--
i.
iPkCCEDWE JCEV i5iut:CATE
-NUMBER-
't! TLE
'EEV:EW OA'E, I
09 4144 12 120 A:W. s '..: T AL _ 'w : E.?
- E. A ', E ; d. A+.C E
."te1*Fs C J
,. e. c...,..
.. -... -.3 a..
r.
r ze....,.
,.., e..
g
...4 i.
.t......
.s
.. ; am ; 4.z-.
e.
n-
.g i
i
.. ) ! ;
...x - : ~
.: ' ~,. j n r
.. i ;,,
I r
s s-
. :- ).
- a. ;
a r*
yt
. L ',
cc,.
....: :. ?. g7 ;,,
- .p 4
4 y
.=
1* ' i S*)
c.,
a r
$t,.-
e
. 2.
r.s.....
H.
n.s 2.,
w
- s. e,... M.
s :
. - et-
-s *
%.% % i,?., ?.u. : E
- 5: W 1M..
m.
. c.
... c....
4
,,f.,.-
e.
g : 11,.
3.:....,:.6,-
... w..
. o.. 9 %'. e.+
ov6...v...- e....n -
+
s, UR'.t..... w... e. -
3e.,1,,..e WP 43
.s
.,3 r E -.. y..e-
- ... c.. a 1...
=
- e. -
04, C t /1 W %:
L JAL EPNA'C :0; INM M ITEM M 416; 1 *.
3ERVicE 4vTEA 01/1.,. '. '....?iOH
-- :L * '. r 3 w.... s.
E v.
4 4 - er
,wF 11g,
1,.
.e r 4+.,
.,s.
w il 34.s 3, -
3 i.,.,s,-..
,w
..... lt.,G...
..R
. 1...
+e
. i. w
- e.. r.
i 4
.# 4 2
a..v s t..y
.. v. > r. :., u E,
s... n.'..< n..
m.
m
~
s, p a.1 G I tr TV* ti ::... i a.,; ; W, - :',. C E M J CC:.. ING. W A *ER 0 ?29 teF
,."....1..,.,-.-
s
, > 3.,. t.... - o. c.
v -.
CF 4150 12
-iERV!C.E.c 3 *NST; WENT 4.IA D ETEM-
' 10 e $j 1 M ti SUR4E!*tANCF 1 C/ 2 01 ** *.'
R Cf 4191 1
HVAC EUNE h. ANCE
.C2'OS1457
..,,,,1,,..-
.y...~
PP 3144 12-FLANT HEA?!NG LOn.E5'E;cVE:utANCE OEIt/ltit-07.?II /1 c c r CP 41*?
14' FUEL OIL T9ANerER M iF.M'E SVEILLANCE 00/07/19%:-
' C2 /1'll 1 ?
- 1 DF 41%
2' C ST LEAv ' MONITCPING' I n"GC A -
Oo/OccicE 04 06/14 %
.OP 4200
,10 MAIN'ETEAM #ELIEF 7ALVE FEM':VALc
' 11/ 03 /18 H'..
> -- i
'IN57ALLATION. T EST I N.;'-
11/07,/14 C OP 4201' 10 REMOV M -INSTALLATION 'NOK?ESTING100 07/Ei(14$*'
MAIN STEAM EAFETY VALvi'i 07/21/1**1 w
-OP-4202 10.
PRIMAFy CONTAINMENT VACWra.EREAKEM.
.02/09/1* N
- INSPEC
- 1CN AND - TEc T ING.
02/09/1* M' my MAINTENANCE AND:TEET!N", ')F MLC. iGU I S 1/i 3/
,. y..
hV '
=OP'4203 b
l VALVE *
30v Me>/1*;'
J
~
u
^
'h
m[
}
q 6
p t.
,o.
o,-
l.a, m
V
.FROCEDuRE~
Fst
- H5tE OATER NUMBER JI TLE REVIEW DATE
. w t. 4;..,.,.
se--E
- w..
5 CR 4,.04,,
a.
- 7. A L 2 o p i.,,4 m..e. e..%.
- v. ; :.,./t w..
.. - u r
-. r.
w 4-
. + 4 4.e -
. w.
a
.t.
- t..... _ -.;- ;.
.a.
- 2. +,
.~m m
y m,.
o.
,y a r.,.. -
, p... p r: e v :;.m.
~ ; (,.1 v 2 :a.
~
v a,,-.
.n-
, 2 i
2 e, ; ; *-
t-r. 2. s.
. g.
, ~ -. z.
.y
,9,....
s.
c_
- . ;, _...: y.;... v. ;
y,,p 9. g
..m 4
m-
.a t.w
. n.-
a..
.... ;.%.v.: :.c. ;...
- t ~, ~ g
.~ y.,, :.
m 4
s gt.,
s n ;'..p_p_n,~
- .
- ,n :,, a..
r
,., ~...p.
~.
.d' M. g'.43':
or a c..:
y
. 4 2 p " 7. - V.5 FOP %NC E, 'E T Se a %ct. ;.
,.t.,
a 4
m,..a4
... e.
r.- y.n,n.,1 W v. m,.':...
. : ;w... /...,..
4
. +..
.n Ob.
a s.
.~
- -...
- y.;.2 m..ar w ;.r..
- o..
xe,:. 0, 1 =. =.
r.
1 E
op at:;
tai mA;N N."
3 1 A rEr. C E3* h/,rJm-tgiT 33fts/1W.T eO2 /IS/1N 2 4
g o
.+m
.vn 4 a.
.y.
.. u, + w-.,,. m.e,.4-w.
c e~r. p% :.: r' ~
' s"
= T~~'
- e..
. r a-. y. m ;,4c m.y 1
. % P,..- r e.,, A N u. E.. u -
. 34
%,,,.~.,r.
cestic in:>
o.
o..,. hm..
2-..
,P 4 =y ;.
m.
O
. -c
- u.. '..m. x. ;.
~.n
, 4, c.
+
,.ii OP 42;J E
COGE F3Avs t NO LFC ! c AV A ILI-P Y ' PCWEW 109 23h1 N MCN!TOD h.IP'AT!ON
^
Nh i3/14; 2;
- a.,
I
=
I 0F 421*
O' MAIN-f* ' ION. ATTERV SEF C E TEST 06720/1 G:-
i
-t
" 'OP. 3
! 0E,G0/1 01 BATTEFY 4
OP 4214, e-MAIN'ETEAM.EAFETiJRELIEF WALVEJ0IS M ARGE1;C3r15/197C LINE' L5PVDLt"VA".UUM^DREAMEF: TESTING'
~C3/45/19%E_
4' CP 4217 2'
ALTERNATE 3AUTDOUra B ATTEFN EAS-2' SEcVICE
-014 3/1450' m
TEST 01/13/1*M
- w
( ;-
CP 4219 O
CALIBRATIGN OF THE: 44V EUS'4ROUNDJ LO1/25e Dic 01/E5/172;L.,
OVERCURFENT.fELAv5 l
4 g
-OP 4219 1:
UPS $ATTERY'. SERVICE TE3,T' UO7.'I1/lcs -
.03/06/1T?.
F-
- 5 W
.OPc4221 SURVE!LLANCE.CFTFIRE ExTIN7JISHING'
/ m 7
y S Y S TE!S o
O F ~ 4 2 4 5 --
2.
CAL. CF CLA55 IE : SAFETi' REi ATED RELAYS 00/28/1 0 :
(IAVS4i UNDERVOLTAGE'F.ELAYi (27/3C;
= Oc/ 29/14-27/~3Or 2VS 0)(27/4C. 27,4Di BUS 41' y
_2 CALIDRAT. ION OF DIESEL GENEcATOR RELAYS.
02/.10/14F
E OOP*4246' mT (CFVB): VOLTAGE SALANCE'AELMS 60-DsA"AND 02/
- 0/1?M
' L %.60-06B 3
11 OE4247; 2
CAL'ISPATION OF CLASS IE SA~ETY RELATED.
05/:17/.lo F
' y
. RELAYS iIACL:0VERCURREN'S GO AVS-10$1?, N 4 53o m". < >
(\\.
x r.
w
' s:
k'.,t
-e E
} j-' r i
(
.,jj;
,(y'.
/
, {.'
. L1
=
lm x
1 a
}d ' ' ';
k
.+__
- P R OC EDvRC '
a-V:
IEOLE 'DATE;
- NVMBER
.c
"!TLE REvrEW'pATE o __.
.OP:4246:
2.
CALI26A G NO CF 4:,A5: 3E E METI PE;ATED. JZr27f1:5c
- ELArim C'-ti;h0# mal ?,*r.'E WLAW C2/P.is:.
e
. t ;.,, ;,. p -
~
. z...e;.,,-. m.
r-7. w.., y-..
~,, e.. g :
- e...;
,. 4 ;,;
s a
3
,. _-.... g q,
z e. 4. +,, ;.--
.r.
g._
, y. _ w g 7,;.
n.. -
.....a
.r :.
4 1m L
s._
wv,.;.
... ~... n v,
e
.w. > r.
. s n
n-a..
- x...-e.
. p. -.. c n.....-.. w..
4, yy
.v, e.
4 4
t.
m
,c.,.
~
T
,. a
..... ~.
- g. m.
.:.. w.. w.
- c.; ;,~,
.c.<..
- a..:w j
- , 4 f.
,1
..+4-WW:. A -
. En ';% '
- - 1 7. c..,
. =
~-.5-'.
,,.:c.-1.e..c: --
,+
~
.r:.
..,. m :.
.. <..ra
. a. '.
,t c. f,.,. ~
.n, u.
- w....
..n
..a c
.a+
m.
'. A P.A 4
- N 3F. h.J.551t i. BA.W~r i.EL A~ED MI?8;iN
- CR a;.O a 7.,ws
.: 7. m i ? DEECT:ONAu 20REN AI.. A' uGIN' U U'4 : 1 --
x
. - A E..,% 33;: is:,.; e b u
QP 42?L L'
~As12FA'*lCN 2F %.Ani2ti;sh W TV RELATE w MtNi L GW 3"
AELA d CW-le S mCH3C ?. EM*rIEALFELAt
' M/ I 1/ d' U. <
t.r..,. ', l.S =,. = s.d / i N.$ 3 :-
- 9
/...
'i.
o
-OP 4255 i.'
CAL.
- ',LAsiJIE.EAFE D;RE ATEDLRE:AYss 05/23/ ISGC Y
AEEA'4/EC2 SUE?VNDERVOL : RELAV727, C.:
'05/23/1940 1
4IN h F/ 4 Y SUEo 2 M 27ka '27/4W=2VS14M O
.a e.
- e.a J-}
t.;.3 a., w e -
......r.
.s m n u#
., m..e - -.. :... s:, A. rT :
nr w
4 RELAN' :dEATR nEl 7IMING RELAYS
~
04 ? 2 U1L:20
- A IOPA"!ON OF DIE 3EL 4ENEbATOR&
0800/ 146::
OF 425
i=
- WEE *:tW GUEE TFE ON_OVERVOi* AGE RELA (5
=0E<09/1 R i!9-1 OGAfAND254-1/DOBF CP 4M6
_ CAL! CHAT:CN OF, DIE 3EL GENEFATCR FELAYSc
- C" n.4(icit 4E T(FC ' J60VERVCLTAGENE_AYSh 50/ DOA -
102r14/17:t^
7,ND SG/DGE?
+
OF AESC 1
CALIBRATION CF: VITAL MG'AU*C TRANSFER:
LA g
VOLTAGE AND ~FEGVENCT-RELAY 5 -
06<;7/1940 a
OP 4300 8
LSRM FUNCT!GNAL/ CAL 1BCATIONJEROCEDURE=
01/05/1=?*-
Uq 01/05/1Fi a,
OP 4301 10 IRM FUNCTIONAL /CALIBRA!!ON 06/21/1c93 08/I1/1431
. i _
OP 4302--
10 APRM. FUNCTIONAL
.01/25/1962 a
01/25/1 ? c1_
~#1
-:1'!
OP'4303-TRANSIENT REACTOR LEVEL MEASUREMENT-
.'01/13/196*
CALIDRATION PROCEDURE
'01/13/1841 H
+
1 OP 4304 16 ROD BLOCK MONITOR'FUNCT!ONAL/CALIBRATICN-'03/15/1900 TEST 03/15/198I 14 OP 4'305 15 RCIRC LOOP.-FLOW-TRANSMITTER CALIBRATION:
04/11/19CC i
j iq
.04/1'1/19 'E OP 4306 to CONTROL ROD'GLOCK SYSTEM LMIC TEST 01/11/19CCs 01/11/1492 O
g c,
y 1
[
'{k*
5 1
0 p
4
g:. a <
w r
+
m + Eh,EDu?E c.
@n HEVf rfifvE10ATEj
>NUMGER
.#t T I TLE -.
EEv EW CA*E idP 4307 3
SRV POSIT *CN!!NDICATIONt3yr.7EMO
.=12 M 2#1;iJ1 FUNC*!CN-aNF ::at D9ATIQtf tI/C2/10:C m
canOM MEF GE GW. %QI 9CM 4 0 L :1. ; u rc: MN a c,12 7..1. 7 div ;.S t y:::
.w
$#,..z g.
.s..
m.,.=
,. :w.,, c.,...:,. w...v. _ a..
a.
4
,y
'c+
<ji
.. -. 7 8...'.,,. -. L s., c. -
wm
..,.a f, 4.
t 4
...i
.a u, rct.
y;*
- f. L-:4,;i M L -
c4p a,r, 3 ;.
..,p. L% a,,.
r+ n c ; t % ;aa'n=.*, = #,- I.m L...-. '. -
- r4~*-
'4-.e?'. u.
u.
5 ' ?
- "h A. '
c e
=
tw
-t
=
..(T
.,. w,e s.. t
--,-..s
,4..
2
,j a,.
!,, ** r,.
w
..,.,4 s
Cu Jm2. L.,-
1e.
n E,.,, -,
, b...
- . c " 3,.~. m,.
m. H 3. 4 H.... e..,..,.. M, -
m r. :.
- c. s
...u
+t m i--
p.,;yc f g 3 gg r u,,ogr Agry,c g N 3 43,; q:::;
R'
- tEAC C :;A'Io loo,.EtEL:fCEA R c. ! $CvLC.
01 ' 17 0 V;'"
'3.
&# n;I LLO M. EL f ?'*L WION FUN 0 ICNAL /
Ltutulo:0 1
,. 4,
.t., 5. f,, o.. y - -
+
'CW 4214
.10 GENEn AT3 : 02E RE /ECT # TV94INE C 9 40'
< 019 05 /:1cic:-
VALSE' A 57 2 05UREh5CPAM ?!;,CTION/;
M 15 /1 (1 -
- l0 C/.Lg3?. JcN
'i
-3; n
OF'4315.
-lot MAINEE7'EAM LINE.RADIAT ION WCNITOR:3 CRAM'
- .W 14 d 4%
' ' I SOLa t J' CN D S'LNCT I ONALt0 AL I 5R A T I ON i"EIT 1 h is CI '.
.Op 4316L 11 REACTCA *iANAL 130F AM FvNOTICNAL? TE57--
02121 A 5:
.r 3
- e,,,a -,1
- 1 : :. -.
Es-CF 4.! ! '
12.
SC ri AM TEST SWITCw FUNCTIONN.'TESTc J01 r: 3d:P
_o)p;L1::4 OP 4319 11 REACTOR mCCE IWITCH IN 3HV7ECWN;7 UNCTION - ~-.01/25/14GC -
- TEST, 01/ 2S r11 '1 a
CF J31C 13 RPS - FIFST STAGE TVREINE -?RE55URE 05/05/196:
FUNCTION.'CALIEFATION 01./05l1': 1-o i
-CF 4320 10 REACTOR PA0TECT!GN EVSTEM eESPONEE
.Os/27<in:C l
TIME CHECW-00/27514:2:
j ci OP 4321 8
1
. INSTRUMENT A ALVEI LINEUP CAVi! NG /CO*JiR OL 02(27/146:'
j 1 1/16,' 1 %'?
J p
1
.1 OPE 4322 8
- MAIN
- 5 TEAM [LINE AREA HIGH TEMPE8ATURE OC/29/14BEl-
'?
' FUNC T I ON / C AL'I E R A..T I ON ' TES Tl OG/29/14 M>
m.
h
.OF A323' 17
. MAIN STEAM LINE HIGH FLCW FUNCTION /-
11/iS.k 'Eu i
CALIBRATION 4 G7/2S/12:".
i GP 4324
-16 MAIN STEA!' LIhE LOWS:9ESSUBE FUNCTION /~
'C2/10
- 1* E #'
]
CALIBRATIGN
~ 2/10/1 3.
- q..
0 p
OP 4325-
- 14 '
CONDENEEP LOW VACUUM' ISOLA
- ION FUNCTION
'OS[2O(141y j
ui TEST / CAL:2 RATION-08/29/14M
!- l 0GP.4326-
.12 REACTOR; EVILDING VEN T !!!ATJlCN/REFUELINC y.
y, 0D02/13 0C j
m 1
6 3
NP,.RM. M n.:.
9 6..
d $< $ 4 C
m,
. %a.
1p
' g (j!
&m>
r_
- __t.
1
/PPOCEDV2Ei
- W I5ivEiDATE.:
. NUMBER'
- 1TLE RG IEWSDATE--
h#
9': a
..f 4
- OP-4327' LO A!P1 EVAC:N'*;JN E95tEK 507 4fLLANCE-C D31/te F
- u a,v 1 g.
.k T-m.
.cp..
. e.
4.
- n..,,(.,,. m,.,...,
- .
m;. u,,~.
~..
,.o,.
7.g r
..an....~...,,
m...
v-
. = %.., =. J. _ m v :
.z
. w r;.
,a
..,.,1 m,
.... n,
. c..
y,.
.,3.
... : m %,, ~. >
.3
+.
+
... +e.,, u
=r e
~n, i
t
- y y.
- . ;. w. y.
,t.q. 9,~. q.;
- 3 y.f l
u
. s v - :n,.- - : :;, m 4 ~;e:e. vy.c a,.. ~ m., y
- m. m
..w
.s-
..m
.4.,* L,
., y ;4W'+&N a w ;....- -
.P
,,*J r* '
i m,
.**;,ae'.
-..i *. 6 i
., ; 7.
w p
. ~.
vr M J..
9 c. N a,.,.,. e..... +
n.
. i. - i m.
. Nu.,.
+
.I.. a. -
.....s
.a
- n...
r
+
a-g 3. r.
a,
-. G p> m c y..., 7.. : _
s,,.a.,....
u.
v m:
..k,.
-s:y N, 1 s.1.
x f.a v.
. m..., S. A.,., 3., w.-
- e. 1,. -...v.<,.,.. :,.g
.~<
y+
-. 4 m;
, n. :.. q:,
n,.,. Lg. - -. s,..., y.
4 n m
.w 3
n
.,f., t 1
.a
.w.
1
(-
.i ! -['
f
%*. '. ", U
. @-. m,.s
-,, y
. m.. p...,,y,
- 3. v n.. +.
c..,. 3 m,.r;. vpJ < n e.a...g LO S/13f14 ~ 0?
.m s.
. g.
m 4
4 OP f.335 11:
RFAC~?.O P.O DiNGM ENT!O N Ed/SGT3]LOGIf
'6 6:
._a t
,:07 / IS /1998 -
WEr
~.'.'N :TGF FQNOTIOMALETEET:
-m
- 0. rts(19 01'
.j*'
P'
=-^
.-. 9 \\
'c s
s
- n -
2 cu
- w...... a g. :. - w v e., -e. -,
Cw.o. W., N,.,
- b. f. L,, c.
u, 1,..:., 7. I s s e,...-
4 3.:.
a t e.
.2.,
v IN TEFLGCW y
(C7328/18:i a-s.
u, -,. 3...
t
. n e. A(4, x. -
n m %
y...
.Lm,., m
..t..,.1.ao.,
y a.
-4 w- --
-. r. w e.w y. u -- d. m 2-liOLM !.N : Fi.;NC 7ITNAL /CM. I E c AT ICio i
(05.h04) 10:q 4.
s Di: G3 S
- 1.5
- DRWEL 1 HIGk FRE55URE EdO57FONCIIC M
/C d iM. /1
- g.
1?:Cs t..,e....
g<,
o.,.,ci. 2
- m..
ia n
-s a
OP 4MO 14 FEACTC9'CW19FESIVRELE003MALVE)-
LCD 1101*r0 '
t 4T
_ PERMISSIVE FUNCT.ICN/C As;3R ATIONi (
J01/05/141-i o
.s
=
(.};
OF A2A1 c6-FUEL POOL;;.EiEL SWITCH CAL *2 RATION!
~ 07 ';5/19sct 9
s07/IS(1931 y
CF 63c2 9
REACTOR #FESEURE ' PPT / A;I /E0CS FUNC TION /.,.. -01011/.187C 4
x
-CALIBRATION'
.i '
,t t fi e /ltj,CC J
,.).
i, T1N08/195 ?
OP c??3
'16
. ADS-SkSTEW LOGIC;TESTJ
._01/13/19 t rL.
.OP A344 4
DPYWELL HE/C2 MONITCR = %NC TIONALL
~06/30/P90 CALIBFATION 06/30/1.4011
..n;
,n :g r
e i
OP 4345 12 ADS POWER MONITORFUNC7IONALDTEST 01/29<192 -
5-4
-01/25/151
]
)
- OP 4346 12 CORE EFFAY PUMP DI SCaiARGE W ESSURE -
.02/17/198
j FUNC T ION / C Al.JI BR AT I ON "O2/17/19#13 1
w y
's J/ OP.4347 11 CORE SDPAY HEADER DIFFEPENTIAL PRE 55URE-OS/05/los#
W[
a( q.
FUNC T ION /C ALIBR ATION
~
f05/OS/14 ;'
~
I t'
'3t 2
3,,tQ; 4y t
t f ?V s
..I
o, A;.
i i
s
' 4' 1 1-4
- y S
- ,s, 4
J
,.A
- PACCEDCRE
- FEb O*
NUMBER
. st :
~ITLE:
12ivE MATEc y
. nE','1EW DATC
-OP 4348L 1'3 :
COPE-53#E/ G YF PONIT'J' F t.C TIOnk -
% ; U tvec' o
'..,.~,.n.
t
- gc~.
3 w.
...,. y ;w.,
.r
. :; r m....
a;.
,. :=
..n. %
+
m., -
4
'm s
a
,.w.
- .?..
w...
a.
r., - 2.. y.,
.*. n.
' : r.+. ' ~ -
.'. i s.. x,.
+
+.
y * ;.a
.. v.'
r,.,, ; "*
- g.c. <
w
+,
' ;. *f ; *
., K 4 i !..
' I i., :l d
-4 f 4
- 4. 4'/...Q
%2 i
. 1 ** 6 e.
+
m,,. jp',
q.
id s
u, 1
.2,
- un -
o ;aa 3
v.s,
.,;,...; 4 -. 9,
.. s.
f v..
..v-.w w. _=..: L.. : * ~.-
.~
p.
u
.:s_s.
4. _.
.+...
4 3
'+
.vy,..
-y. p e.., a % *...
q,,
up ' aW:
is M u u L %.M,C MON 1 W+ ' C 's.;Nu.c 2 Mh?s.L
^
7 g.
a,.,.p..g 1
-. m e.. m..
ce n
.t
.n,c;
,q a %. A, ? 2.C n;
'E U 2WC3j\\cqx
, l.0) C 3[15 :i -
i
~1....+
w.
.a.,s.,.
u,
u,.l _. m v.. -
q,.. -
.v.-,_,.m..
m.w...,..,.. k..
n., m...
s.u..,.. u g T v... g-107/23/190'.-
OP'43?6
' 13
- r3 : I : I'E.#.3 a f4E MTri P,.OCONC T 104 -
02t1Ci145R 4
<02/10/14 %.
Y
% j-CP
%....e.... I G N :... M -
C,e
'.a; ;.,.. g-4 m
4.,..
H.,..
m -
_,... T
- c. u n.., ~, -..
c:. -
4 LINE J. ?PEEEUFE FUNC T:~)M A' /C AtlS'( AT ION ' "07.'25/10 % s M
- y
, _... ~,
CP 43M
-G
'HP:f Mi.AP INE/5 FACE w!GH 'EMPERAF.RE~
-107./W 14'E -
CONC.0% ciL:*, RAT;0N 02CG/1&.
C# 43S:
1 ~s HPC I E di: TEM $0WEF LMONITN F'.NC "lCNI.Ls x
. -01/1'3 r 1*?C 71
- c. m-m,14,. 3,> 1_-.. '..
i 5
s u-
+3 3.. 4,,
-7t 4 gps I :
.r:..
M :.yc,7 7
s7--
r c
e-
-.-)
-.M,*.i}j.q Q'~
(
o OP'4361 19 '-
HPCI: SYSTEM'(?QLATION A > S s'.;G I C -
'C2727/14#C-FUNC T IONAL / C AL'.! B4 AT I GN TEE'.
02/27/140,5 5i.
.I i.
CP 4362 6
RWCSLBREAufCETECTIONf!3 %AT*GN-
"O1/17/.14:C1 N
FUNCTION /:ALIBRATION:
102/27./1901 OP:436J
'16-HPC:*EUCT!ON TRAN.EEP.
~,N " C ONDENS ATE.-
'O.1/E2/19 %.
.}
3 TOR AGE.TANr. (CST)~LOWriEVEL;FUNCT10NALE 101/22/141 TEST /. CST LEVEL INSTRUM.ENTATIONoCALIE; O?- 43o4
11
'RCTC ETEAM LINEhMIGH FCCW 9.NCTIONf.
O*' / 29 /199C
~
CALIGRATION'
-07/28/143.
OP 4365 13 LRCIC STEAM'LINE LOW :PE55UFE FUNCTICN/
Ot./18/:1400 CALIBRATION 04/19/1D"I, e
3
'OP 4366 9
LRCIC STEAM LINE TONNEL/ SPACE HIGH.
'04 /2 5 /1.4; "!
TEMPERATURE FUNCTION /CALI3RTION: TEST 04 / ~'5 /14:7
- j
--OP 4367 11 RC IC SYETEM,POWEN - MON UCR 9.NC TION ?
Q1/13/143%
'j T _ s.,
w 111 /:...
... o i - x.
e i.-
v p
- 1. [
Y Y, '
1
u #- m 4.
m 1
4
- ~
1 j
1 4
PGCCEDVFE REV dEECES6 ATE'
- NUMBER m.
TI M REY EWJDATE
............. - ~.
- y............
OF143H 1Q-GEACTCP !CFid SC. A T !QN COL ;NG l l PC CU 04)15/jo y.
4 s
.a y gy:..,. u
- u... :,ar.
...g w*e; ~ 4.y. ; p. *.:.:,-
.r.,.. :. g ; e.
e
- u. ss 7,,..
.. n
..e,.x...rea.
- .y
- ,r c
~..:
.e -
e,
+
.,~,a.
-a.
. r.n,i 2 :,c ;
' y;7
.a.
e
. r.s E. - : -.
q=
.. r s
1
- j. / y
- *I f.
g a'V.
",,- ' f 4. j
- p ;;j #j 'N9
- q ',
lj $
,e*e.,e g -.t,j cp 47. y* ry
- ,. t..,
- *,i ;, j w
3 y..
...m,.
4 fV a
..~.t..
. a.
.".". L' : %..%.* :**.1 * ;, re ' ~
- M-h%=; ;
4 A
. m. '. t.
- 1 y
,,m.,.-
y
.. e '
,,n
,.sN.
_.. v.1
+
- . A '7 1.1 4 ' / :.
'.n
- V '.:ii;-& A ' MT +%CM 8
. ;(w. w*r
..A.-
a v. : :..: :..
1 3
(-
.,.4 3
x 4
o...
m y n3 l~
1s' rantA 4 t R'!Ep+RF:,% H52.' A.. ;u R AT :CN With=V c.
v, u,.. :.m..
- s. -
' k
.,3 i
4 yn/
ras
~;> :p ; o^ ;s.;& xA:e.,, i. du :
"a ANd ; ~ E;...n.M : 4 ACI 34.J':: wi O&zi721.000 3
s i i c
.. + --
3 o aan
)?
M.w m,' n u p F.;2ALISu,T!r.k n 1W.2 r tiGE g
4:3/;3/1941D m
_7
- n
,.g 04 43N 11 TON 3-MM W 3O LLDING1:?AC%COREAWEAa A!!/25(lo9c-9
, ~.
O!FrfE CT:AL +9E55URENFUNCW AC1BRATICum MlER150 L
~
1 0i,-,
,+ w
- CR 4 F.' ?
3 LR YWEL; a' ElRAtar6 *FEMSOFr$LOOFi A,m
'j f03 rih 193F
-c,n g.117,..
.tu f,.eu. I u b... C.N A;
1 o
y J
OF 4376 17 E) C E 3 % 3 :..'W 0.e EC C 6*.LVE ; #UN *.:TICNAC t*/20K1H
(
l-4.
g-s s s. );.
y
.s s a**.
- . p.
+num u-e t..,.m...RENp....'
' c.
a.
3 Dr.-..e.,
s
- ,.., w.1 S. -
W>
9
/
FUNCJCAd50ATION.i me - R s s.saVR.'
f
- i. e n
<t.
w n or or 0N.. IB / i:e
.,, 'i."
II QP G30 8
.FUNC /'ALISRA"IONcOF' HYDROGEN'
- M
..i DETECTION W ITEMi YO79ES/1c5:
LONZEII'i:1-M, c
CP 4331-8 AOG RADIAT1GN MONITCRS FUNi'TIONAC/ CAL)
-Q2EC$/1940 Oa, s C 5,;.o.,.
r
=CP 4362 15 STACK WADIAT:GN"10NITCR!NG-
~O1/11714 %
d FUNCTIONAL / CALIBRATION 01/11/1*CI;
__ q:lj.
w
...8 OF G83 6
STACFHI 4 AWE.NO3LE GAS: MONITOR 7 05/10/1900 7
FUNC /CALI3 RATION L OSf10 /.1G C E e
'OP 4304
- 18-AREA F AD I AT I ON, MON ITOR ING
- : SYSTEM l 04 /E5/1 * *0 FUNCTICNAL/CFERATING: CYCLE TEST.
02/27/15:i
-j
'OP 4335 14
'LIGUID FTiCCE55' RADIATION-MbNITORING
- 02/14)1oF SYSTEM CUNC rIGN/CALIBR ATION 02/14(17%',
RP 4396 11 MAIN ITEAM LINE.PELIEF~ VAL".E BELLOWE f12/02/14 L
M 2-LEAKAGE CALIBRATION:
712/02/1407
-OP-4397 16
' AIR EVECTCR-OFF~ GAS-3iADIATION MONITORING l112/13I142 m
SYSTEM FUNC T IONAL /C AL I G R,A T(:0N L
- O"*(14 /15; u
g 7
I'[ g
,.r
_______m___-___--
a.
..d Li
'[i
,&ii,<
.t' n - a f. / i
(
i
. 2 9.=
+
F 1
6 s,
~r.
q
,; it Ty
.i 3
I s
+... $
e
..A; '
R M% Qi; E".O E - fiw
_M I A.E l R E'/ I EW '. DATE J X
'NUM3ER O'
c.t s p,.gcc A y g,
!Op~4330 4
C9NTA W EN" ~ F AY FL*.JW L WNCMI TTEM ?
l}
., a. r w. <,. iy
., ~~ 3 p y 3.:. n ;.*r.re,
., v
-fg
's
- . h 'i
,.e
.p,r
- e..u
., s,..a. y e.
a c
... -.a s ;
y s.,.
.y f
- a w m.
- n u y
u
, y, y s.,,......y#
s.
.z s
.y,:3,*n.W,np p, m y.
- 7 e
oe
- 9.,
6.
mg
- a
.. I t c,,
v.,.'.i-
~~=g...,...w.. '. y t I
.s
.. a
. = :..
s-,
a s.-
J < <,
a.
e 7
'I w
. r.,g,,
.t g.,
1
_..m
,e.
m
- e. y
- r, m. +
a w., :.n c + v... y
..r ~...-:
e L e., e~
s-b m.
t.
-7' mN.
W:
a.
O p m. a.i. n g e
- ,y- -
- 5. -...
-f
_.1 t
m p,
- n/ w.
- n,. m n;a.na. m. y
,4
- v. c...4. : a. :, --
y
.,s y p~:p;-
4.-
.,~m,
,m J OW. T * *..n ", W
- V. A T.YN,
,-a v
yg.
e
,+
v _
y.
3
-s
^
- T ? V 1 y :. *
.. d
." e w r n~.s, p. :'
g g
m w' Wi
,Y
- t t
."y l*Q $574%, & QbTi&L Qn va p. ? '-
- - {
- ,,*;
A:4 Mg:.U !*NGl W:,C, s.-OMGWry sQ,
,y-Y**.. c* N'e.L,U'[*"r.niW.3 4
. w
. : *:' ;1.
U
',..6 % 4. ' *- *
?J
.y
- 6
- E?c" '
- 0!(10/19 ;"
.i E..
A' R P 4.3 o '
10 C NEAF %.O ATf:ON CONI *CC/FUNCY $HE Q '
LQ4f 2S/i?S5 '-
R4.C.UI k.1?. ' 1 o
1 i y. -
A g
5 3,. w e.',. e f
c s.
,, P. 3 _..
, O r..,
. m.J,.,.,, D.,
- y.,.
.. p,, _.
e n ::. a _ t - '..et f
u
- .4.
e if L.
, v < a g 4.,u---
s
- a....
y ;
1 i
R F
- d..e...
.c
., e. /u.. m m.
AK-n.,r..'
wPE..
s 4 c:,w. n R. A.,,E AD mE%
< v,s. o,a.., _gz,
. r.m
+-
o 3 0 o., r.1,..,
c y: -
..,Ot.,
- 4.,,,/.,,
..!C4~ a.S T -
e
.tt.
. e c
-v
.i..r i
4..
-]
07 4 M OO v
SAJE*;.Au;ES?OSITIONt:NDICATIONj 3e
. 03 r;19 /14.cC{
Q I
FUNCT!0NALcCAuIBRATION ME5TF
'024:5?t9:
(
.)
i
.i
[.'.
_l Ci-43)01-0 BURVEILLANCEjF/ IRE [PROTE"p!ON.
- 04M 'b 180C
' EQUIPMENT-804?1O/193I-o I
I Y
ACTUA T ION LC.".;.I'C '
"q":
/
F.UNC T I GN,.,.
4
.s
.r....; N.
- e.m. ---
a n.* i 5 J L,
jm 3 +
GP.42103
'APRM FLCW CCN'.ERTERJAND ACWER SUPPLv!
5.
i
! /
CALIBRATION W
l:
y
.' ALI3R AT!GN _ OFTT+-iE 1 AFFR 5YSTEM 'T'O?JCORE; J. Olds /1;;5: 1 85I CP 4400 12 C
' THERMAL FOWERl 01:(2B T1y 0'.
i DM s
OP.4401 17 CORE = THERMAL 6-YDR AVLIC. s.IMI TS i EVAL'JATION 42/;10?159c j
[C2'10f19=1
}.
l 6
it..
+
p 1171 F/14 EC '
d
'OP.4403 12 00CE THERMAL L~IMITS SUR'/EILLANCE USING?
3D MONICCFE MANUAL. MONITOR 111/15/100C :
m u-OP 4404
-5 CONTROL CLADE LIFETIME t?ANAGEMENT
..03/15/1c6c~
[
-0 3 / 1 5 /:1 N i c
- =
4 3
10P 4406:
9
'LPRM CALIDPATION AND MsNCTlGNALLCHECA
~12/E9/1964
,b O
M.
A 1
1 5
8 3
L.
4 4
e t
4 3'
i 4
y m.
1 r
r t
6
...Q
.1_'~
...p.
e 3
c 31 2
- r... _.
_:.w, m,
..g
.o, 3 3
c
?#CCED(,'FE + MW:
~
1siUE<OATE?
l p' '
.s.
' NUMBER-
.C.
TJTLE !'
RE'.*IEW DATE j
_s x-..
lCP 44.07 5
LFRM-L*FET!MEiMAN/0E"ENT s'A C 4 ; 1 W, '
,1 i' 5 c i.e l l : 4
. g v., :...,,,. -. -
m, m.c 1 ;.,--...
-f
.,s.,,.. u... t..
q
.-.e~_
- g
-y y
s.
y 4.=.... ;... ; ;,*,
.i s
7 43
.a
.2 M
. (*
q.
- c. g r ;.4 : : :
q me.
- . _u '.
? ; i,'. t., :
s
< : t.~3; L
i
,.e -
A --- A. ; f n
- s.,.
j y9 u.-
.h-2*
a
)
. i.%e
- m.,w E y, W..,..
, u.-
i
'*~
v-
. w:
- =.
.m a.,
s s
y1
' l: S
~ ~-
u p.
y 3
.h,'i.
4
- 1 h
- r
. y.
?,
.n, %,..
...t a.v p '. r..,..r.,wb.
o' e G..,,; ;..1..n a
, v o
j
-0 A c dl u c-a,
}-
'[ i Y
y N O IdX. >' ' d, iMl:i M ', 'Ti.M % !L :, :
OS c 7.s,4GF w eN JJ e
- z. :... N.,,
N. v. :.,
i
- 4.,
w /, /,.1, x.
v m.,
-.4....
. g g,= r ;.
1,.r :
y#y m..,. - ; g c. e ;
4
.s-
- qq.rt :( t w; _
OP - eGI 1-
< GNT:C';. OF~-t1CLCCICAL NM EY
- 'OIr07/159C.
4 I
~
EQUIP N.N;7' 0
-10/2011w it 1
OF 4?03 0-500PCE C-' U A ATIO4 CF REAC T R GUIL"!NG )
-Oca ;. f i 'i O 5 : -'
VENE;LATION'AND: FEFUELING WEA JONE?
TCMit-14 ;-
-GADIr!;'N y00170P3.
- 30U5CE. AIEstTION;Ch 4 MA!N ETEA*[L O,uE -
0kO9/1 3C
-OP 400S O'
- RACIAT!CN MONITCn:,O m-W:- / 05 713 '.<
~
C.S 4506-O
- OPER; /SDURCE C AC OFw A hB1'.% WENT
~.G lei 1G?:!
.EXHAVE EAIL 40G'3LDG.'T','ENT :ExhAJET~
OC706/ toc
- AIR ANDiCCNT '. A I R, MONITCR$"
w l
l;
-CP 450' O
SOURCE iC AL!34 ATION OF. TEAM-JJET: fAIF-
- CC/CSU *iC
~
L
. EJECTOR'OFF 4 A S - M. O N ! T O R S '
'09 /Osd G 1.
[
g l ;:
?
DP: 4 08 O
CALIBRArIcN 3 TWE'HNS AUTOPATED TCCL
~06.P /lcs:
FRISKER.;ATF)'
C6/I7/14 1 e
OP 4?O9 CHANGE TO.OP 460f 708/10/1 87--
-/- =/
c.' ;
. i 1>
r 11/05/1987-OP: 4310 CHANGED-70-GP.460" llit
- /
/
t e
OP 4512 4
CALIBRATION OF TH.E NM,C MOSIt.E-CONTINUOUS
[
l l-=
l'
- 4,.
t AIR MONITOR 5 03/16/1*20-
)
- OP 4513-O CALIBRATION OF.HIGH RANGE srACK MONITOR' 09/09/1 E0 09/CG(1***-
d 1
>+OP-4514.
1 SAMPLING / ANALYSIS:OFJCONTAIt. MENT 1.2/27/1 W 1
+,
ENVIRONMENT OS/08/1* '.
r F!2
.a t --.
x.--
7 e# '
f'ki T
+'t
,4
'[
.g mp 3.1,r.
.e
.r
~ +.
r' p
i.~.-
M P4./ 4 8. h 4 hd8 'hi,*ld 4.5 %,f' 4 4 4 # s., f Is
- C.,., '
. V J G 4 l' l 9,
- G ';
4, M
10-4
.s.-
i r x 9r i
4 t
4 PEV..
- PROCEDUPE
!ssus :. ATE <
NUMBER =
. T I T;.E
.AEV.;EW DATE.
. OP 4521:
'3-
! 500RCE C AL ;;;t.T IpN GEC T AINMENT a:4H' C3/;;3 1 se t R ANG C R e.-
- . ; :.:N p*,NITC:'
- i2
- ;.y1;c (
s
+1 m
ts? :4p;-
- 1-c AL;U A L.1. 7 t.a:-
r; D. *-.;, M U; i N ;,-
0;, J ;. p p G A 0 I a ' N.^ ~:qiCd - E, E *C# :s av.T ;!)
3; r; zM :. ~
- w.:..I6r".
. di; 4 5..
w'
'. ;.. - i > c
- ,. ;. ; *,. q W1 y y ;., '
o p..t q
.. ' ),* ; %. g,7, L. '
,' :, : p -
, :2 p,-
.f ; 1
- ; s, =
i cc
- .i mN r 2r
- r,..:. f ? t, 7,/ ;M.f
- a.1 ; W.
- \\
- ..,,
af
- e. 5 2 4 -
tu 7 t.# f.?rc es, nCNi TOF ING FF ;0th V;TidT M -
E '.C-(v;;
"HE, a M.-;u Nr.,':CuTR CL AFEi, ;QC.W W: Wt1~
CP 4 33 16
- A !5 2,;FvE # AD ;.74C 'I / I'i r ".MN.:$NTA A T IOtt 45).?;i[14:c' I
- g....., N,
, s y C e,..e1...,. -
.=
vi...
5-y t.f at3a
-11 CAL:W A UCN: QF-THE!PQflTA3LE A[R SANFL.EA~. Oc / I t'/14 5c 06/12/157C' c.
~,
, J02/2 7/11 C EC
'j DP 4535 E3 TE;hN ICA' SUFPORT.CENTEF RADIAT!CNI MONit'CRLFUNCTIONAL/ CAL:2FATION" Fu2 / E 7.111~ 1
.DP 4536 4
C ALICP '4 TICtJ QF t Li>DLUM *1CDE' 1177 ALAFMJ O A M L : cCE RATEMETER' ga,ec4,i :;
CF 4t38 0
GPERATION AND USE -OF 4.ARMINGJ DOSIMETER 07.717 : 1 &SC E DM-6.
ccI/j7;1:::
DP'4b37
. t CALICFATION GF:GRAET
- ODE;..t1000.
L12l?S/1:50 2000 W EXTENDER-12/CS/1921 b
p OF-4540 20 GPER AT ICN. 0F ' F ADI ATION i FFO TEC TION J
=1'O /11/i o3C -
STANDARD 'IOURCES::ANDjR-CHAMEER.
- 1;1/16i10C' i,
M T,
DP 4541 9
.CALIBRATIGNlOf PIC-6A-AND M
' QNC3/1:5 l'
102 @ 3/170'.
4 ts A:
DP 454 10 CALIBRATION OF PNR-4
. 04rIS/15 F
. 04 /28 /14 ~ '. ;
[{
'T I 'j l
DP 4547 8
RESP'_W5E CHECK - Orv IRT F0FT AL ' R ADI ATION" 06/27/1*GC4 3
P MONITOR
.0c/27/IOCi U
. d Ei h
- OPL4548,
. CHANGED TO'DP 4648 - C2/03A1988 L/.
/
l[,
i n'
s3 lge q
DP 4549
.13 CALIBRATION-OF RM-14/RM-19 01/11/100 q
i 0.1/ a.1'/16 L DP'4555
.3 CALIBRATION OF THE EBERLINE ESP-1 00i22/1C F
-.\\
= ' ~
'WITH SPA-3-DETECTCR 09/22/1:a'.
1
+
..t.
-DP 4558
-10 CALIBRATION OF IGN CHAMBER ~ SURVEY METERS ~,03)0771 W:
l g
W.
03/07>174,1
+
- n.
J l
'm
a iA L
pp g
.-c;
.p 4.
.%[
f PFOCEDUFE G EV,
!ss g DATEe i
- iNUMBER, C.
T I Tt.E WEVIEW DATES
'DP'4$59
- 7 POCKET D}?IMETER--C ALIB:A T I 'A
-04p2c/106:
Q9,: 20,1 ? : 1
- P 35
- :0 CAL F C' N 3;.'@ J e--p
- ~ L ;s c 14 8 y.
_..x;.
, e. @
- z. s u
,.1
,.y v.y y y.
y lg,.
.gr
.9, 3=.y..
4 s
ys.
.c
.,s.,,
i
'i.
,0
,~!t-
.-....s y e y y.,,,,
..u..
f 'J' 6 q '* c
,'..,'j' O'
i w..
- 9. ; n >..S t a,wi / < s...%
TM-I T '.
y
.,.3.
a 3.4
- , n -,-.
i e
A-.
1
.i, h.
09 -aM m 4
';.L U m,& y Tr.6, f t 2,.., m - _ &-..
-OD;9 : 19c Pt'GFOP ~,' ON.Ln -SQP,IA2l,.i..!M CQVNTEs -
42/47/ly*1 pp a n,.4 '
2 ce.,;i;/?r.in Jy;M9;TEC ;a
- AND? G-2
.04/25/1;E '
.Q4 <2a/1 g1l
-C DP. 4h5 3
C At i ;W ', ; C N N'. E7 500N.:4T1 "HF FODEL.
l00 / 07 /1200s
)
rip-7.20A MAND' ROBE.
03/07/15I; DP 4$7s 2
C AL.t @ M ICN A.?.D GP EF AT ION OF? THE -
01/17/140-
,N 3
EDERLINE"FCM
'.B',
.00/17,139T.-
DP A572 O
GA5 MON! TOR: :t*L! stJ ATION -
1C/IQft:E?-
W
- 10 / ;O /.1 CP 4574 0
OPERAT*CN CF ATlaOSPHERIC TCETING
[10/"JOr t f.iG p L
EGUIFMENT 10/70F190'-
l n,'
3 DP 4575 0
,0PERATION GF THEJPE5FIRATOR:DECONT
.OE/OG?tC?4-
~
l
- FAC I L I 1",
021C S/18 '. -
g AP 4cC1' 2
ENVIFGNMEN T AL i R ADI AT!gN 1 SUS',:EILLANCE 05/10/.14 ^-
j
- PROGR AM.;
'02iCS/14 %
i CP 4e02 SAMPL-ING?OF FIREf;GHTING FOAM FOR' W f
'o
).]
ANNUAL' ANALYSIS
. /.
?'
OP 4605 17
> ENVIRONMENTAL'.RADi,ATION SAMFLINGEAND L12/IS/ine c
ANALYSIS
'07/IO/ M 20
't l,
OP 4604 5
PERIQUICiEVALVATION OF:OFF.ITE 05/10/1900 RADIOLOGICAL DOSES' 05/10/140Zi
,m s
m
\\;
- 05/19/1988-30 /
4 m
i
.OP'4610 CHANGED:TO OP-4501
)
/ -/-
RH i
l OP 4611 13-
' SAMPLING AND TREATMENT OF THE SLC 03/15/08"C.
],
SYSTEM 03/15/1SOE j
4
.: h
'OP 4612 12 5AMPLING ANDiTREATMENT-OF THE REACTOR 03/22/1840' 9
WATER SYSTEM 03/22/.1Go?
d 1
ij OP 4613 14 SAMPLING ~AND TREATMENT OF D'.ESEL FUEL 0 0 04/140'.'
OIL l01/05/1401:
y Ng(
1
+
p: :y; y-M'y
- w-
<. -/
s=
1 n
y x:
- o( :,
=
i
+
y 3( -
.-x FROCEDVRE, PGs
.O
- tE3?tC DATE
~
NUMBER;--
TITLE REV?id : DATE
-OP 4e14 CHANGE 0 ~ ~ AF d\\t '. 2
' 0 2 /061*984
).
Y s.j,w..-
3 6..
- m. -27 w..., e..
...u,.....
m u,.
4,
.y._ u, t
s p
1.:.
1
.v...c.,..
+
ey
+
c.
e... ;.,
K
- : lr. a -
-w y 1 ; r.
- . -.- v
.. ::. :n x : :,. w.
4 4
3.
v t r.... (
r
.c,.
n.1,.
, y. p',. e. #.-
.e..,.
,w 3
m a_.c e f.,.
1
'.2
_.w 4-, 4 :, e.
s
- f. o i.*.%
v. i; F,, i J<
.... ** 1
.. 3 ;. I Lc na v
Ad,
4 ;, 4 4.-
i
.-s w...'4-*
.Mi wa.'...,
.r
,4,,..,....
o.- a,t.. ; %..,
e'....,
4.
.; s
- r.
CP W.:
O C,b ?"F rRN J#7LANT ci w yONITQR5 M e;3ric F s
f,.
... e.14 :., -
,o I
o ga n g,t c
3 4.F. t o :
.cJ'
.91/.1.. < 3i5-JF-N T49 MEN
- 12 /197 Ir4 5 u-
?.,N:: ' :qm~ : wEu r ' r' r,STatrEtn : IR viUPh.L Es "t'2 r 16: t o:...
m RF 4at
~S AA -. :n Art. 7E:YMENTD:FL"'-ELHOUS$U
%8/23/10kei g
HEATDG IiC LEFS
'06/I%/1941<
'y%. '
, \\
09 - 4t;"i 13 5AP'.U;G ' : T 'REATMENTOF'i IL3EED 102/26?1900:
L.
COOL!NO WA7ER) SY5TEMS IOU 0e / IM; =
n A
W
+
C4 4eaa.
1 SAMPLING' Nr TREATMENT CF'THEJFOEL-
- 074 ; 41:$ ~
p n. g(.'. :.,> +. :.:.w.. <
. g.-,<.e < 3.
,, ;;s..
.5 s
I. %
RP 462S 11 3AMPwIN4 AND !REATMENTJCFtT-E REACICR'.
LOCiE9/1C3C GTEAM S C EM 044C6/13:C; s
FP 4626 4
SAMP! !NG AND: 79EA1MENTyCF"T-E CGNDENSATE : 01 h C S /:1.on:
LAND SEEOWATEF SYSTEMSi 01/C5/17;;
1 CP 4627 16 SAMPLING ANDLTREATMENT GF TFE-
_1r/1S[1Ai?
_j CIRCULATING'ANOlSERVICE a'A'"ER SYSTBS-106 /CW1:01
?
4-d RP 4629 5
. SAMPLING AND.'NALVIS CF ThE RHR HEAT '
'O-j E7 / I C S C :
Nj EXCHANGEH Ge/I7/13G1 RP 46 9 1~
SAMPLING C~ THE"MAAEUP-DEM:NERALINR.
_ _03 /15 /1
- c 1
SYSTEM ltMUDS) 06/27/13:1
"~
DP 4648 2
CALIBRATION OF VICTOREEN TLC SYSTEM 01/1'7/1900
.i
' o 0
01/17/17?E' 1
OP-4800 10 GENERAL SAFETY SURVEILLANCE' 03/01'/1900
" i
_03/01lA==2
>3 t
1 OP S200 0
SAFETi SYETEM. ROT 4 TING EGOIPMENT 10/25r1MC d
10/25e1:":
o1 OP ' 5201' 9'
SAFETY SYSTEM VALVES.
02/17/1463
= l 02 /17 /1 #. ; '.
q N
a
' 0P 5202 7
MAINTENANCE AND INSPECT!!ON CF HEAT
- / J/
P EYCHAN.WPE. PREGBU2p VCN W. AND TANKS.-
Ag -
(gym'M L "
g,i g
...k
, w f \\,
n,
+
,k,_
[ $ _'
A
,1 g
- w
. W, y
5 ge.iw
.9 nn w, e.
4 EV 4
-,C n
~
. W OCEDUAEJ 3s.
-IsnE DATEi W NUMEER.
in
-,-rITLEi
' REV: EW \\c
... 4. h T E L.
1
-OPc5203 14'
. INSPECTION AND-LTEEilOG3CF L
S OCk 1
en, n e m. :. e -: r.
s..r.
,p. w.,
- 4. _
s s o
- u.
J
,,Q...
..s g,.
g
-3
>~ - e% "4 ?,t* 4..N-4 m
A g
-c...
. %,.*, -. e. s + s
-p.
w (*.
\\
.: [ 4.
.6 a
i;; w.,h. 3, ;
. sc e m,,
o
'7 I.
f 1
+
- ,4.n..
Tw 1. y.: :
, y *, *:p
.a
< J p -
1l t
.7 y~
+
.N'
', M.,
s i e.?.., ; 7.
.g.,
- p, e*
~
- y;~
,. N.,u*.
- ' i g :-...
+
%., g a
., e,
s, 4
?:f v..g,**.,.'
p L
' w,,, ;. a d
i q
s
..u..
~. >.
. <:.m
.a m,.
- q. sv. m..
p ~. - ;. r.
y q 3* ~ - l.t g.
w ;.n y y
- g.
1,g i.;;(. 7 a-
,3
.1.
4 s
s g k1 N'-
M, A v. g.. E.. ~,..',.f
- ,n :n-r c.. a = v 2 9 c.,i xVm.,i w....s r. '
_. ; rf, o.g.
L' s, L...,.
S s
r,. %,.. '
.....~...<,..;-...m a
.5.
y 9,. ;
e y
e., - r. 6 s.@. I.-:+u
..~.;'
s,
.~ sa s
s,
.y
}~
y:
., 'x
- c
.-.; 4 a
., ;, he i4 22(C2dc:(
a
. / v /w,. -
- h..... g. ~,. e qe..*,m,
- i.- %.1..
.s.w c,
en, n. s.
n EPR "
m.Ec vc p;w,. W F33On g 4 E h,s rTp/,,
ev v1w; ;Ni~
~
[
[ L.
. Q,
- p 4 0F S232 MOVAE - "EI r !NG CF HCTC? @F IF ATEDjtiLVE'J_
W. fit t194 W(
s-512/os/1coc y1
?
6 'I OPMSIs0 11 1 LIMiTCcrME"OFER4 TOR"INSFECTION f/<
+
41s.. J.i.e.s L..
w
. c1v.
E li "
e s
o..
CP 5221
- 4 4GO W.C C;RCVIIBREAdE8EC!NEPECTIOND dIECMiin ' M.
5.
06 / 24 / i>'4 E b,
"C At. I GR ATICN.. ' AN D TEST ING...
1 4, s.
~ CP $222
.10 4KV - AC 0FCUIT DREAKER1!NE:ECTIO;N.
M= g.
ON21/1569,
..j-
+
cat _IERATICN AND-TESTINv
'y 101/13417
- s
~
CF 5 22'; '
1
-EMER3 ENC'r DIEGEL GENERATO61 MAINTENANCE 05f23/19??
w 0a(16/1702
\\-
r t
y is
.5I24-CHANGF.D TO DOP. S991 L - 106 G.* M f88 :
/
j _
j OP v
..V : t-p
- ,\\ y--
.,p.1-
-t-l EMERGENCY DIESEL GENERATCP ELECTRICAL-O ? i23/1 S *':
A.:
L CP S225 4
MAINTENANCE D11 M 5/140 ' !
d 3
i m
(.
n
?D'#I1/195c.
y 0F 5I26 5
i 345K_V_BREAKERLFAILUREiTESTING~
% 0 ni.
- 017.05(1.941.
m,e
?a l
09 5230 REFUEL.ING PL'ATFORM CEA14/.1924.,
I
.s
- Otr14/1991 x fy 1
GP 5231 7
SERVICE PLATFORM:
07'IB/19AN 07 / E9 /195.1 -
.-'p s.
OP 5232'
- /
NEW-FUEL INSPECTION STAND
- OS / *d9 /1. G 6 :
08/29/15:1"
.?
J
'OP S233 7
FUEL FREP MACHINE' iO/03/14Ec' 110/03(14: 1;
, d L.OP 5234 7
REFUEL FLOORa)IB CRANEG 10/03k1485=
p
.10/03l t * * *.
r',.-
7p
-{
- [,
..f.
i i
i 7
e t
)
'I*,
g W
m f5 r
^
A n
l-in tsC,k PROCEDURE' EE9 15 eve DATE, NUMBER
'ITLE REVIEW-DATE-OP 5235 0
AC AND CC MOTOR MAINTF.NANCi 0 1,T;5 r 1 0 c;
.f
,.U n.,e ;. a.
c.%
.n
- e.,,;.
s c-j;--
..,c
,7..
- FANE
"!,2 ; ? ' : '.r. A ND " 1 1 r, *. /.h E 1;- 1 1 -; 1 ' ;
- - n..
-- ; u
.:.ND *;:,7.
4 T
- 32. p r :
\\
s t I;
3 t.,..,.,...
.~.o.e....
,. g s,... a;. 4
~an-
- 1
,. 4 q.
a t_. u. n-
.2. 2 n. :.-
- m. e
. fa -
m.
e..t..v 2,. 3. s
~ =.:' U T 1 *" * > = V
."'i
- a...' :. '. = a '
6 Op 5;.h caLIva ";0N y.; p.
C AFC " r '- t.L AT E D l
fa. :n~. ;mt.. %.~e..yt. 7
- s 4.J:. *. n Lwt_or*,o2 ss OP %M a
M.,
EWIT+90Ead.h5FEO~ ION cNC.TE:1"!NG
/
/
= ;
SP ARE 0:56 A7ICNA' %M !'*h.P ENTAT!ON 03?06/143 -
h 103 /06 /1 c 3.1 l I i
i OP 5301 9
7IP IVB~EM ?4EVEN~AT;VE-MAINTENANCE 02/27/IQ6C
.x t _ ;., -
- .c, 1 4..,_.
1 1
OP $302 7
D I 3S AE EE'1E LY AND A35EtaDLV,0:QCEOUPE OS : Ise :.9 ' i i
t COR ERMJ IF M DETECTOR.
06 / 2C / '. 0 4 '.
1 OP S301 11 MStV #FEVENT/ "IE MAINTENANCE AND 02'11 N FIJ'.'s" ~4 $.'.m' 1. t'.
"r'. ":~ '.
w''.'..'<'.~?~.,
i OP 530a 6
MAINTENANCE AND I'EST NG Of' AE ' RELAY E 01111/1 0' '
01/11/1 " T, s
OP S305 7
SOLENOID VALVE-MAINTENANCE 02/10/.191
^
- . m a..r-me.
,8
.~r r
r k
I' OP 5306 6
REFUEL CFANE C AL IBRATIOra ce/2c/1cs:
(
N3, 06(27/10 1 OP S307 0
ELECTRICAL CHECbOUT 0F NEUTHTN 05/C3/17E MONITORING CETECTORS 05/03/190*.
l RP 5309 5
TURSINE VACUVM TRIP 3 FUNCTIONAL /
O2/27/14~1C CALIDRATION TEST 02/27/19:I OP 5300 S
C ALIBR ATION EG ' PR IMAR t' CONTAINMENT 08/20/1 CEC ATMOSPHERE CONTROL SYSTEM 08/29/1@**
OP.5310 2
NUCLEAR HOILER RECIRCULATION PUMP 07/14/192':
SYSTEM 07/14/1G '.
OP 5311 CALIBRATION OF SLC INSTRUMENTATION 03/06/i:30 03/06/14:'
5 OP 5312 5
.' CALIBRATION OF CCRE SPCAY GYSTEM 09/12/19sE.
.I Ql BALANCE OF PLANT.INSTRU(1EN't. TION OS/12/;1C -
\\,.............._.._.....-
' gg a
l.
1 FROCEDVOE- _ R EV -
= 5%E DATER
-NUMBER
'#z T!TLE R
+ : 1
. - - EV I E W 4 D A T E y
i OPc5313 6
- CALISP AT!~N 7 RHF /LFCI. SYi?EM 3ALANCE.
/
- GF PLANT !NS TEU*ENTATI%
'Q,., 2 011 M C my
,a..
-t : :s
.m......., a.,. -
.c,.....
- A L,.,... s.4
- e *e.
.m.
v.
r EbANT [ I *[ N (,. YN T I.' (N f j,U 'r. ' 'l E ki
,.i.-
,a,,> ;
x-. ? -
-; e
..s e -
~n - :,.
....s...-x v.-
~
\\ _.
t r c.r, -
- s.y '; 1, e.:7Ar[CN
. J, ; :N:1. c.;.
- i a,.
- a. ;;. _. _..
.. w,-,. s.
n..
g,;f,t w
..,, o.. -
. y < g.; 1 s
- N.: n = 7,.. y py
, y
.1. g:e
,.s; f,-
- r2,....
. 3.,
w p r. ; t r.u
.; r.,.,
ir.,, :,..
.-:3
+
,s
.w.:...
...... ~
-1.;;. r : q.
,4.,,..., ;.a ; '. n =
L ~.
m
=. -
o
- n.,. :, :.-
4 m
-L,,.
. or
.,o 7 -/,,;Ed, i c. -,.;aw O. P y., 2 -
u v
,,,3.<Mm.,h.
- A.&
.. u u g. e..h
., t.., n....t.-
.; -.. 4.. t & - r
,.3.
- r i
.o
,..s
- c. ;. MJL ATOR ' ;PGTN a.~C. " ATICri
.;O4(2311 9 1.
4;u 4
.N~ REACTCF :;iT 9."P F L ';..
13)OR1 M
- o ING-cu c 74 lON
' Q2 /;14 /1041 s
TIM!SE U'i MGdG V ALYE' i EF i.aC EEENT=
- /. E.
j.
1
_RA S320 D
49104(t=2Cc s
.RP S?Il e
- SEPL CCTb7 kND CALIBRATION pef b1/;13{10EC'.
PANA'aC N ! C " MC ISTV9 En DE TEC T 'JR 5 '
L 01 f.13 /1" 3l n
-i\\.
RP 5322 7
- nECIRC PUMF1MG SAILEY 34S: 7IONER:
ONIsti:N s
MAINTENANCE;
~
M
- 7.
.cg/IS.4'1 c1=
. w hb
.RF S323
.9.
' A!R 0;.M?1 PREVEN T AT IVE ? MA l'xTENMJC E '
0 ' 4/1cE C i
.0 9.1J/10:1
.1 4
CP 5324 o
, AFRM. C'.',W-CCNVERTER / POWER $ 5'.PPLC 103E2c/1:E6 U
EAL 3 RAT:CN
' A-
.'OkA2 /1C'C d
n OP:532?
6 C ALIBF ATION 'OR CFD INSTFUMENTATICNi 0S/10/10 :".
1
.x b.
05/iO/19:I --
'I S
j;.
=j
\\.
OP 5326 7
CALIBRATION OF DIE 5EL1 FUEL GIL' 03/C;7/1400 h
STORAGE INSTRUMENTS
.0 9 07/19. 2 My us i
OP S327 7
.CALIBRATIONUOF PLANr rIRE PROTECTION.
-04/11'/190^
i>
! SYSTEM INSTRUMENTS f04411/13:2-4 OP<5328 2
FUEL 1' FOOL COOLING' SYSTEM - INETRUMENTATION ; C3 615 / iC OI.
CALISPATION 03/15/14 E
da OP 5329 S
CALIB. CF SGTS BALANCE CF *% ANT 05.FC5/1 B:
_.?
INSTRUMENTATION 05/05/194
.OP5332 6
TIP TUBING FEMOVAL AND FEP,LACEMENT 04/*.1/.1400
'i 04/11/140s.
.o a
J
> -OP S333-6 SRM/ IRM! DETECTOR - INSER T/RETP AC T MECH.
02/27/1G"*
MAINTENANCE O2/27/15
- d o
3.
a fiOP 5334 9
TIP SHEAR VALVE-SGUID-CHARGE TESTING
-05/10/14:
i 7));y M
AND REPLACEMENT i
. O S /10 /14 ;i' u
s
.y
.n r
.L,-
i
.(;
]2
>(;
4,
o M'
,.y.
i
- 7. -
n f-j t-
'?
POCCELI E{ ~EEE
. TITLE.-
REVIEWLDATEJ,
EiVE:CATEi
' i JNUMBER 01
,a.........................._
OP-533S~
4; P R IM AP 's M TEGPOLOGICAd INS'EM.
L O 4=/I?i 14 si
- FUNC 7 Ict.:.gc.:it l es AT 10t. 'E4 4
_ q 0:q sr1 :c-
/
1
..,,,,'M_....
Q 47. ~,,,....
- s a
- d
, os.
c.
- , 4 * *== ;,. h =- ~..gg d',
g,\\
/
y.
-=*
_, f **,..,.
~.J.,,
if*
2j
, g
- 1
'4
,.-.g...
, se s,,i s_==.
c.
.,o
.-l..
n p. 4,, a,; ;+.
,3 +.. - <-,.,y.,.
,'3.
, ; w.,.,., ;.y s,,
- x
- .,;;eo..
4.
.1
..., :, %
- y,.: 7;> *q:}";fl g
' ~ n 3 7 <. ; ;.y
/s) a 4 'Lt. +I *b
- s
- f.
.../*+*. gj.%*.,y ;., ; * * ',
g*
- 1. / *..
q.;. 4.O ; = w *
- 1
- +..
- f..- *,
,n*
.-.W L ; t ig. n. - X +, ?
w w
G ;; 3 3,r
- q a Q ' J,' a l y %;G.' y $Q
,;;;A Q 'y.p q j *} y
-c-
- p m
- g r._t.
- V.. * ;.,, 0 A 9*9,-..
1,.* A.g,,*, y i
.F.
-a
<,,. y*, 4
- J
..m.,<
.p-
.m.
t
.s m :c o r m. p.,,.g.
.:.m.
- ..m.
. w.
,.; go n..
,g p
- e., n-4
,.s 4.. -
o;.
m w;*.ic !P.v..o*ALIGaAT;CN JE;J f4/ES/19;i~
- w. - a or ya c,.
t
- n. 4,.. e e,. -.. y,; - p gs.gy. p y.m. wp."..r p o.,
e
.......n 1 9 3 g n,.p ~ L..~..
.. w
'RP S3M 4
MAI hiTEAM M E35U9E:TRANGD2 ER l.DT-av _
- ,04/.25/1002'.
H]1
'04/25/193Cf PESPGl3E ANC HYSTERES!S T E :, >
RP~b3S2
.3-J ELEC TPCN;C rCESEURE L REGU' 'ATCR2 fEPR. '
104/ Oti/ t c5El C V / B P.
rWC T I,CN AL / O A' 3 PAT!ON TESTE M 4 M d14 7':-
-(SHUT 0cwNi:
si-OP 5353 3
L '3EEDW ATER CCNTROL' SYSTEF
- 10/03/1G5::
,y 02/17/14 ::
OP S354 2
CALIDHA*iCN OFoCONDENSATEfikSTEM' (04/11/105C:,
's ALANC E OF. PLANTo.. INETR UMENi'ATIONf,
'04711/17917'
[.
s-t OP 535?
3 RBCCW aND ' TBCCW ij00 LING.-WA"ER SYSTEMSi;
'12YO9/149: 2 037.15/1;H 4
OPJ535:
1--
MAIN, EXTRACT!ONJANC AUXIL!AR JSTEAM3 2/E A
! SYSTEM 05/04/1440 J
q OP 5357
-1.
> REACTOR WATEP CLEAN-UP SYSTEM
/: ~/-
o 06/O6'/1900 t
i OP 5358 2
1 RECIRCULATION'FLOWLCONTROL 11/16/1@SE d
lm}
11/16/1990
- t
- GP S359
,3
~ ADVANCED OFF GAS S(STEM BALANCEcOF
~ 02/17/1 C E: -
j FLANT-'INSTRUMENTATIONE 02/17/19c'O M
.~
.s a
OP 5360
'2 CONDENSATE DEMINERALIZER
'01/25/199*
d 01/25/1441 4
w OP 5361 3
DIESEL GENERATORS'A AND D INSTRUMENT 11722/1984' CALIBRATION 1F/22/1991
- j o
'OP 5362 2
.FEEDWATER SEATER' DRAINS ANDLVENTS' 06/30/198c' q
.. :., -~
06/30/1041 i
8 96,*
.c. Aus f,
95u.g # see
- 9
.e pun 4 # 9.*.e g
9.e #4 64 w-er.'e.'.
'..e
.*e.**
- i I
g h
' d au.
,se.
l' $'.t i
q -
!y.
e
+>
5
'li
- \\ ;
ei
P N p :.svt& W,9 2:0 4
o 4 4 4
mg#,
s 4 u
in Qi,'
g.
W:
lPn0CEDORE.
REV..
6
.tiEVE' TATE <
NUMBER TITLE FEVIEW;DATE:
...~
OPiS364 2'
CONTAINtTN7 JND STATICN,5E:VICE1A!:
- /IB/14:CL
>+
SYSTEM C 2 (2s /.14 : *
-j
.a
. ;...,. w,..,;, = c. :. 5, m,4 ~.g.
- f 4s p a, v..
- u..
. n,,.,,. :.: :v
.r.
m,.. n.u..:... -
n
.,.s ev g o'.. : e.
~
4 au.
j!(
i s
. m.. a. :..
mr.-
p.
- .y.
.g.:.
a.:
4
.,7. -
- m.,
- . y
-y
,q ap.,
\\!
=s,
' t 'g S,.E'~
..n.c a,
- m
g i...., g*,.,,,,..,..,..
- i,
.t
.m
..,.,*'g.9"~
~.g
' ' M* 4 34G.
,]
q=
g
~,,. ',
4 4 e
l & (: *.;-i.).
m,
' M ),}-y 7"f %
~
1 e
s.
<p-
- o. a.
..a
, y+.g em,.,.,
.a
,m sp. 4 _.
-e
.. r
.w
.n e.
4 i.
.y u
-.my q,.
c.
c,,,. ;...,..,.
, (:'..
,i+;)
i Oc 037i PC M
.Q.W O L R<STEMr',4.iBA FIONiTEIS W
4 W<
M v.
s>
a
?
w i
- )
- 1
'OP 52 r TM-
- g. ' W
- N KE Pt '.)N X-3
. j
,(
' n y
+.
.q ;
7
,r
.y >
5 s
A I.
op 4400
- c-o cR I.rw j /.',.! 29 AT I ON y EF I F :f; A T I ON O C F O$ /10/14901 M
! I MF0F "' t.f iT -. CN OTE=. ANALOG 31NPOTSJ
'45/10619 R y j
,C F. M 4 0 1 S~
i DA TA 3.n.?"L ING : AND DATA ? CHECKS L I~OR:
// g /C M..'.
PROCEEG COMPUTER. A T.? 30C i.
0 0 -* f r.0./.14 h.
~
-a 3
RP'5430 INI'TIAi!NG REGUESTS?FOR NCMPUTER)..
QU:P15dC W
RESouP Gi D:
03/q.L13 i:
g 2
.5 l;,
OP Soci E
INSTAL'.ATION OF' CABLE FENETNATION GEALSL GO:di W/.
t 3
L AND 5;M 2AE*asi 0.~ /1. Ri ;' J. '
W!
1
- b. ;
L
',G 9
mc 3
+
APL6000' if PA.. ANT 'UESIGN CH'ANGE EREGbES Ti' s j
[cm)gy[3a;:
9
~
~
,0F N/. 45i%
m b
I'
. AP = 6001' 14-INSTALLAT!ON? TEST /SPECIAL 'EST n
tv9 E9/ lone:
u
.PROCEDUFES Oc/29/1*bA1 M
.}
di
?06 / EN 14?C' :
1 AP.6002
'O PREPARING 50r54' SAFETY EVAb.ATICN5i 06/I?/1 61 g
+
.1; lT
=AP 6002 13
-PLANT ALTEFATION REQUEgr.
10/25/195c=
1
'10/1$/1@ 1 g t
l-
_ _t
.. 6 AP 6004
-12 ENGINEERING' DESIGN: CHANGE RE0VESTo 11703/10.,
11/03/14;~
le l -
N. -.
,Ng AP~6010 9
IN-PLANT AUDITS 105/20/19C O
305/30/1P ;7 "t
2AP 6015 4
RECE!PT INSPECTION _CF SAFET' CLASS OR "08/3d ? t M Y
.k SAFETY RELATED MATERIALSL
. 02 / 1 '.b l S 0 ".
H i
.i b
g 7AP 6017 3
MATERIAL UPGRADE AND. DEDICATION
'OS/16/14E
- l...
'I
.r EVALUATION (MUADE) 08/21/lcei y
-3
'I y,
JAP.6021 13 NONCOMFORMANCE REPORTS
_ T-5 /,
y 05/25/ic W
\\
,a-s s
e ( >
+v ; _
a
,i..j/'
4[
g 3
,. 4. ;
et.
m..
c
'/
ki 1
.n
- ,i 4 OCCCEDvRE AEV 850vE DATE, k, '
NUMBER TITLE FEVIEW DATE
. 3 AP 6022 10 JOB ORDEW F L' E E 0 * /
e., / i c ec r., u., <.,,. : :,.
,t 1
l
.. n. :.s :. r..-.
nu-
_,,7
.e e,.
?
s,..
u,.
a:.
....e
.t"'..S.
4 %"*
s 4
i
'f i
l i
1 l
l l
c i
1 F
s l
l 4
2
'N 1
a e
1 g
a 1
o s
..I i
s il bu.,
. )..
.]
U--
- w.
n.
i m -4Paiba,.. ;; ' r AJ i de r< cnt. nd e Jef i444 iv -
E.E. iA,,t i
.e,ca.
g
~"
1 V0*M VAntf EtUIPMtWT MNKS REMIN!N6
'l 05/c!/tef N
Verder Paual. W (2 m t Rup tev Ortes $t Manalhe Vencer ran41/tsulceeet'itle Rev j (o - 1 23:enu...
..m.in
.. :::: en sens esen.snusses......
- eunues.... -
l 1 P34H -
Di;agt lategt SV Restter Vessel 6N L ;rn ::
\\
r 1
' V91401'
- hic #go tridge airlotts & Clesures - Ccerating &
BN
- ,treete Nintenaaet instructics
^\\
l i
t.
'4 96-0 M CV! hiperatten advanced Offgn irstes (A001.
Le ll
3R$47t3
'Olr-0107 FaiftaBks M0f se ' Diesel Generators SN l
- Ergine Div)
CeltIndustries iPRE406a VYEM-0107 Fa19 nts !torse Fairbanks Forse Power Ostes Products SN :
Englee Divistec 'tamal -- Pepair & Service lefore-c 1
I Ve6-M63 fluer Procats Counterflow.and Crow!en Cotilrig 64.
1 i
Conoa9y Inc.
Tosers-- Oper# ting ard Maint Instinct
,j i
W S M 66 Fluer Western Cooling foust loesd Reducts - Field-UN Repair Instructions l
1
.GR l
M64067 6eneral Asseters and Volteeters -- Types :
Electrit
' A9&DB-40,41,62 L 44 !astall-Instruct 4
VFR6439 Sentral Pinettoards--TyotNAlLNHB-BR Ilectric
'.460069 Beneral type AK Lou Voltage Poser Circuit BR --
Inectric treakers--Prodcetsleforsation=
l 1
l vrR34071 General Type HIA Auxiliary Relays --
GR j
Ele:tric RenewalParts
-l
'.M6 0072 General fyee NFA Auxiliary Relays -
6R -
Electric ReneualParts
'l v%64073 General Type P3V Instantaneous Voltage Relays -6R l
Ele: trit Renewal Parts Vns-0076 Geural Type P!V Instantaneous Voltage Relays 6R i
Elettric Renenal Parts
}
V!tRS0075 Etogral type IAC iles-Overcurrent Relays --
6R-
)
Electric RenemalParts i
i VMR64076 6eneral typeCFVBVoltageBalanceRelays--
GR I
Electric Renewal Parts N S-0077 Secetal Type CFV8 Yeltage N ance Relays --
BR Electric ReatualParts 1o
'c]
1 A.
7p" t%r'-25-19901 11812 FPON: tne rnent rcnkee ver 2121 TO EeE0 EPATT'-
P,03-
~
FAGE 1 0$/02/90 VERONI YARtf (GUIPREkT MANUALS R(%1NING C5!0tet?
- ender "a sa! VY (cci;t Rest fevituoAo Paiual he Vender
'tanval/tcalpeent Title Rev nonennus nannes neuen::: n inunsennnnesunnunnenus nu Electric W.5-0079 General ti171,( NOT O (AR) 6R d
Electte W 3 0010 General T pe 59M Ccntrol Suitches -.
OR Electric Fenesal Parts
- R64081 Qeeveal Metal Claa lettchgear - Typs M-26 BR Electric a-dM36--Re$ewalPa*ts H
iv$4092 Seretal Type ML 1) Mechatis45 d enewal Parts - BR Electric i
VMRH003 Ser.eral Power Cltcult treakers Types AK-2/20 GR I
Electric
-7!, AK 3/3A 75, AK-4/4A 75 sad I
AK 5/$A 75 1
1 vnti000t Bretal Magne41ast Circuit 3reaker
- SR
!!ectric Type AM 4.16 150/250-9 -Reunal farts VMA6-00t1 6 ens 41 Instruesnt tractformers-Melded and SR
!!r,tric Other Dry Types -- Instrvctions VP.t$ 0086 Eewral IC2000 0 C 6eneral Purpcse Centactors BR Electric p
k VMi-%87 6eneral 11oe4vercurtent Relays -Instructions OR -
Electrit j
VER34089 General Undervoltage Relays -- Iratructions -
BR l
Ele:tric i
=
v$$40!'
leneral flee-Overturrent Relays Instructions OR l
Electrit VMS4090 Seneral Instantaneous Auxiliary Relay --
BR I
Electric Instructions VM64091 lewral.
Metal Clad Svithchgear --Types MI6 L BR i
Elactric M36 -- Instructions u
VPAS4 Cit 6en<ral voltase Relays -- lastructions OR I
Electric i
-VMG-0093 General Low Voltage Dramout Suitchgear -
GR Electric Type A(D -- testructions-j i
VM H 094 Seneral New fri-Clad vertical, High-Thrust, OR Electric Polyphase Induction Motors Instruct VMS-0095 General Multteentact Aux 111ery Relay -
6R Electric Type HfA$1 -- Instructions 1
t'
t%r-25-in0 14: 1; n d im ment ren co var-2124 TO EG BMTT P.04 PAltt 05/02/10 V(R9(1 YHKEL EQUIPalENT MMUAll RtMA!N14 0$ltti'0 Ve%of fa%a VTIQJlpt Relp Fgr Grou; $t B4N4; ho Ve m t Parval/(guipatet Title Pev ensu.nnu.nennu nunsunun nunaninnnannuanninnun un MS D%
6trefal
- ntrol and traasfer faltch SR l
E!e:t tt Tyre Sir ~ Instructions E
W M 011 Sere 41 Avrtitary Felays -- Hasd Ruet with 6P Ele: tris target--TynesMEA61&E!A62
. MH(18 Sene al Tri-Clad vertical lc h:tten Motors -
ER Eltettle HighThrust. Hollow &SolidStaft P Base
.\\
VM3-Mit Genral Molded Case Cirtvit treakers --
OR -
3 tit:trtt roter Operated Me:hanises l
VM6=0100 General Conversion Kits (MVil fer AK 15/25 BR (It:ttle VMS 0101 Seneral CC a ntliary Relays -- Intruttloes -
SR u
tjectric VM64102 Eestral itslantaneousVoltageRelays--
GR Ele;trat irstructlens VPR34103 General tiesOverturrantRelays SR Ele:trl;
'vM S 0:04 6aneral.
Voltage Balante Relay - Type CTVB!lA BR Elettrit Instructites V8tM4105 6eneral ACUndervoltageRelay-TvpeHAVill' IR Elaetric V%54106 General Power Curtutt treakers -- Types SR Ele:tric Ar t/2A 13; AK 2/3/2A/34-25; AKU-2/3/2A/3A25--
MelntenanceInstructions v960107 General Tri clad Single and Polyphase Ball 6R l
Electric learing Motort ~ Installetion and MaintenanceInstructions 4550106 General SecondaryUnitSubstation GR Electric Tranfereers - Instructions
\\MS-0109 General Winding Tesotrature Eeulpeent -
SR Electric Instructions VMR64110 6eneral Low-Yoltage Power Circuit Breakers 6R Electric Maintenance Manual (heclement to 6fK - 7303)
YEG01:1 Beneral Magne Blast Cirtutt Bfeaker-lestruct 6R Electric and Recossended Parts for Maintenance l
.n.,-
i
t PA$t 3 05/04/90:
VERMONT YANKtt tQUlPMNT MANUALI RinAININ6 i
^$/02/90 M 4er 9a m t vvEtuipt Pesp Rev trtoo No Pwal.h Venter Manual /ttuloetntTitle Rev
- s:::::::::::::::::::r:::::::::::: r : ::::
i f
tlectrit Irstructions ~
i W S 0!!3 Seneral (TitLt 01 CLI R) 6R Elett te j
'tRG4116 Grev 41 T eld Testing of 6eneral Electric GR i
tiectric Type Overcurrent fris Devltes W64115
- 6 ercal H Poser Circuit treakers'--
64 -
d (lectrit
-Electrically anc Manually Coerated k
TypesAKF-t-251 AKFtA-t$-Instruct i
VM6 0!!6 General Pecirculating Water Puso Motors
,6R
!!ectrit W l 4117
-6enral G.E.PeretrationSeals 238132261 6R '
s Electric
. VMR64118 General LosVoltagePowerCircuitBreakers
' GR tiectric lestallationandGoerattenManual M S 0119, General it!TLENOTCLEARI SR Electrit
'I VMG-0120 General EJ Current Lietting Feuer ruses, EK OR I
!!a:tric fuse luoperts and Fuse 4isconne: ting Saltches -- Instructions j
eeRS-0121 Several-Vital M4 -- Instructions 3R tjectric g
V?R64%f 6eneral Magne41sst Circuit Breder-Type SR Electric AM-6.16-t304,1800 & 2000 Aeostes alth ML-13 Mechanina -- Instructions and Rectoseeded Parts for Maintenante OR64123 Seneral Nutti Contact Auxiliary Relay Tyge. 6R i
tiectric HFA!31 -- Instructions WRG4124 Seneral ElecteicalProtectionAsseebly BR tinctric 914t175 (Htx700405) -- Operation and Maintenance Instructions-VMS-0125 General Type AK Lev Voltage Power Circuit SR
)
!!ectric Breakers--Reneoal Parts Informatl w
-[
VNR6-013)
'$ raver Cond.Demins.
91(
)
VPRS4172 Tf! Engineerirg Refuel Platform Air Cospressor 6 11 Recla:eeent-q i
m y-25-1990 -14: 13 FACri. Wrmekt : f ar*.ee ver.1124 TO E 4C SG TT I
~
F.06 P40E 4 05/02/90 r.
t VERMONT f.tWtt IDUlPMENT MM.S REM!NING.
[
i 05/0t/'0 Verdor PawAl VY Esvist Resp 8ev $ren he
',ar.tal No vender Manal/Equiptent Title' Rev
- een.............. esens :::::::::.......
..sesse....................
Vf4-0(23 M t;an Tyge,ai-16.-40.PS-16.-toAnetters-GR and Volteete's !rstall' Instructions Wldtiv utega :
CeP9-8VitalACFre:coccy/Yeltage-GR in$ltatitaa'rJSuptivSeletterSatt:b i
'k j
W(0235 Actematt:
elC0 Valves - Installatten and L6
[
5eitch Ce(4SCO) Rair.teunte lettructlers VM64249 6eretal.
General Ele: trit - DJ. Connectors
' GR
=r Electrie (LPfm t
l.
VFR602:0 leneral Relays (Cossostte Manual Coord!Nie IR
.l Electric with6.E/Faintenancel
~
VP.ti0tS1 General BEK 81281 Safety Relief valve Open/
, OR Electric Close Monitoring Systes.-- Operation and Hainteu n:e testructions=
j VP44291 Sentral GEA 10e79 -- Mitreversairis RMS-9 6R Electric Cenversion Kits -- For AKIAKR I.ou
(
YoltagePouerCircuitBreakers g
V54 0(?2 General SEH 4657 - Mitroversatrip Progresser ER
!!ettrit ForCircuittreakers 150-4000 Aseeres: 240. 480, f. 600 VAC.-
VMi-0!e3 6 ental 6EH-5349 - Microversairlp RM$ 9 ER -
Ele: trit Prograeser - For Circuit Breakers 150-4000 AMF5 240. 600 and 600 VAC
{
V1RE-0294 Beneral SEH-5415 -- Mitreversairlo RMS-9 GR '
Electric Conversion Kits - Breate Types AK 15, AK/AKU-25 l
VF% 0295 Seceral GEH-97728 -- MicreversaTrio RMS-9 6R,
Electric Conversion Kits -- Breaker Types 4K/AKU/AKT50.AK$/ESU/AKST-50, AK/AKR75,AK/AKR-100 VM6-02%
6entral SES 6227 - Low-Voltage Poser Circuit SR tiettric Breakers type AKR - Time Current Curves
.\\
VMR6-0310 VYEM-0!!B ASCO Transfer Suitch - For DC-3 L6
- VMR9032$
Geretal ControlRodDrive GR Elettric
_,~
4,...,
h
---+ -
e a
~ t1A(-55-1990 14: 14 fcori Wrment iane0o vce-2124 TO
~E4C ERATT-P.07 P6El f, 0$/C/90 VERMONT T HKit E9UIPRENT MANUAL $ - Rt4414 M 01/02/90 viager r al VY ta2ict Resp..
tev l'euc Ng hatual h7 Vetdtf M4Mel/IQ0$448%Yitlt sty see ::::::: 3 :::::a.. si. sossessees evesessvessatissarissassassanessesses ever tie:ttic q
- vnsam 3aceral
% clear rol stenciy sa 1
Electnc vn64330 114rd Mtse.Edaarestattenvalves 04
. j R
L l
Y
_.l 1
9 4
j.
TOTAL P.07 i
ATTACHMENT 109 IMPLEMENTING PROCEDURES AND POLICIES FOR QUAL!FYING. SAFETY SYSTCM EQUIPHENT.
q Plant Procedures
~
'AP 6025 l
-AP:6700 AP 0020-DP 0302 AP 6003 AP 6802
(
AP 0021 AP 0620 AP 6004-AP'6805:
AP 0045 AP 0803 AP 6010 AP 6806' AP 0125 AP 0806 AP 6015
'AP E807
-]'
AP 0140 AP 0831 AP 6017' AP 6808 AP 0153 AP 4000 AP 6021 AP-6809i AP 0154 AP 4025 AP 6022 AP 6810 DP 0157 AP 4026 AP 6024-AP 6811:.
y AP 0201 DP 5204 i
Policies Ji i
VYP317 Procedure lfor Disposition of Company Assets.
?
VYP318 Contracts' Administration Procedure VYP319 Vendor Analysis Procedure
-VYP321 Request for Quotation / Bid Evaluation Procedure i
VYP327 Procurement Engineering Administrative Procedure VYP328 Technical Evaluation Procedure l
VYP329 Equivalency Evaluation Procedure
.VYP330 Commercial-Grate Dedication Procedure VYP331 Procurement Quality Assurance Procedure O
VYP332 Inventory Procurement Procedure YNSD Procedures WE-001 Administration of the Engideering Manual WE-002 Design Control Document t?E-005 Standard Memorandum-WE-100 Engineering Design Change Request WE-101 Plant Design Change.RequestJ WE-102 Design Criteria
'I WE-103 Engineering Calculations and Analyses WE-104 Qualification Tests WE-105 Drawings J
WE-106 Procedures and-Instructions WE-107 Specifications.
't WE-108 Computer Codes WE-109 Engineering' Deficiency Reports j
WE-200 Material and/or-Service Purchase Request
]
WE-201 Non-Conformance Reports WE-202 Technical Evaluation of Vendors i
WE-203 Request for Bids WE-205 Bid Evaluation and Procurement a
/dm
MAy-:e-1990 13:19. FROM.._ Ut Yonkeo Cerp To-P.02 i
' Signatures I, Dotiald A. Reid, being first duly sworn, do depose and say that the foregoing answers are true, except insofar as they are based on information -
that is available to Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corporation but not within my personal knowledge, as to ~vhich ! based on such information.
believe them to be true.
\\G b
)
. Donald A. Reid As to objections:
q l
/
s -
~
1.
E K. Gad m
- V' Jeffrey P. Trout -
Ropes & Oray One laternational Place.
i
(
Boston, Massachuetts 02110 -
'l Telephone: 617-911 7320 Dated: May 30.1990.
dlN O
Notary Public
,( Y g *C q
Q j
(mm%
N u
Y
+-
.,, 00MUj 1
- 108 -
vnts e n--
1' L.
! Ot.nf.if D USNRC VYN.t48
% _ M -I ' P4 '4do^.AB. FAX St BrAX.VY Certificate ofppleeJF SECi<ETMY j
OOCK[llNG A 'if.ifVICi.
I, R. K. Gad til, hereby certify that on May 60AHt90, I made service of
'(
the within answers to interrogatories, by, mailing copies thereof, first class mail, postage prepaid, as follows:
Robert M. Lazo, Esquire Jerry Harbour 1
Chairman Administrative Judge :
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board-
- Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S.N.R.C, U.S.N.R.C.
Washington, D.C. 20555 Washington, D.C, 20555.
a Frederi:k J. Shon Adjudicatory File'-
Administrative Judge Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Atomic Safety and Licensing Board
' Panel U.S.N.R.C.
U.S.N.R.C.
Washington, D.C,20555 '
Washington, D.C. 20555 j
Anthony Z. Roisman, Esquire Ann P, Hodadon, Esquire
]
Cohen Milstein & Hausfeld Patricia A. Jehle, Esquire il
. Suite 600 U.S.N.R.C.
I.'
1401 New York Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20005 -
. Washington, D.C. 20555 -
James Volz,' Esquire j
Vermont Department of Public Service -m O
120 State Street Montpelier, Vermont 05602
- p,
'N i
D'
/
6
~"%.
R. K. Gad III [
l j
i
'i
- }
i e
)
- E