ML20056B194

Answer of Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp to State of VT Motion to Compel (Interrogatories Set 2).* Motion Should Be Denied Based on Listed Reasons.Certificate of Svc Encl

ML20056B194
Person / Time
Site:	Vermont Yankee
Issue date:	08/02/1990
From:	Gad R ROPES & GRAY, VERMONT YANKEE NUCLEAR POWER CORP.
To:	Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
References
CON-#390-10705 OLA-4, NUDOCS 9008150180
Download: ML20056B194 (9)

Text

.. ... .

, }Vf $

DOCKETED USNRC UNITED STATES OF AMERICA '90 E -7 A8 :22 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ,y, gg before the N'.th ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING HOARD

)

in the Matter of )

) Docket No. 50-271-OLA-4 VERMONT YANKEE NUCLEAR ) (Construction Period POWER CORPORATION ) Recapture)

)

(Vermont Yankee Nuclear )

Power Station) )

)

ANSWER OF YERMONT YANKEE NUCLEAR POWER CORPORATION TO STATE OF VERMONT'S MOTION TO COMPEL (Interrogatories. Set No. 2)

Licensee Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corporation (hereinafter

" Licensee" or Vermont Yankee") responds to the " Motion to Compel Answers to Interrogatories (Vermont Set No. 2)" (hereinafter fMotion") filed oy intervenor the State of Vermont ("SOV") on July 18, 1990, in the Motion, SOY moves that thi: Board compel further responses to thirty-eight (38) interrogatories posed by it to Vermont Yankee. For the reasons discussed below, the Motion should be denied,

l. Generic Arguments b) SOY All but r .andful of SOV's demands for further responses fallinto one (or both) of two general categories: interrogatories which Vermont Yankee has aheady fully answered; and interrogatories calling for descriptions of the contents if copyrighted INPO documents. Licensee addresses each of these ge'.eric requests below.

A. Portions of SOV's Motion That are Moot.

SOY moves to compel with respect to numerous interrogatories which Vermont Yankee answered in full, and for which SOY states no specific dissatisfaction with the answer given. Some eighteen (18) of the thirty-eight interrogatories covered by SOV's motion-Nos. 8,62,64,65,66,80,81, 83, 84, 88, 29, 90, 94, 96,101,102,104 and 105-fall into this category Since the questions have been answered, and there is, therefore, no relief fot 9008150100 900002 PDR ADOCK 05000271 cp3 0 PDR

f

.l-i the Board to grant, this half of SOV's Motion should be summarily denied as -

moot.2 t

11. Requests for the Contents of INPO Docutaents l SOV's moves to compel with respect to twenty six (26) requests-Nos. 52, 54, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98. 99, 100,101,102,104, and 1058 -which called upon Vermont Yankee in ce: win circumstances to describe the contents of copyrighted INPO documents which Licensee is contractually obligated not to disclose. Vermont Yankee has y already discussed in detail, in " Vermont Yankee Objection to Document  :

Production and Request for Protective Order (INPO Documents)", filed June 15,1990, nr.d in " Answer of Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corporation to State of Vermont's Motion to Compel (Document Requests, Set No. 2), filed July 13,1990, the reasons why the confidentiality of those documents should be preserved. We add only that the Letter of Angelina 5. Howard to frank l llelin, Attachment A hereto, confirms the proprietary nat'*. .4 the materia-j 1, and that Vermont Yankee has been "instruricd" by I*,N not to disclose it, i (Emphasis added.) .

It should also be noted t..dt, with respect to ~s'.actly half of these inter-rogatories,8 Vermont Yankee answered either 4 hat it knew of no such document. It did not use the document, or it was unable to ascertain how (if at all) tb scurnent was used. Thus, those thirteen interrogatories have been fully answered.

11. Responses as to Specific interrogatories ,

Interrogatory 4 This Board specifically rejected a contention proffered by SOY challenging the applicable codes for components of Vermont Yankee 2SOV's tactic of repeatedly moving to compel with respect to large numbers of interrogatories and document requests that already were answered

• in full seems something of a waste of time, particularly in a case in which SOY is complaining about the burden of litigation upon its resources, it also constitutes an unfair burden on Vermont Yankee, especially in light of the 425 interrogatories,327 document requests, and 13 deposition notices served by SOY on Vermont Yankee, 8

Contrary to the implication in the Mt tion, at the bottom of page 1, SOY ,

did not move to compel with respect to Nt.s. 91,92, and 103.

3Nos, 80, 81, 83, 84, 88, 89, 90, ?4. 96,101,102,104, and 105.

2-

L e

.. ?~ j ki L"'

[

\ \

k, t t

Nuclear Power Station (*VYNPS").' Indeed, in so doing, the Board noted that the contention amounted to an impermissible challenge to the Commission's' regulations, and was not accompanied by an appropriate i 2.758 petition.8 in this interrogatory. SOY attempts to revive the subject of the codes applicable to VYNPS components, still without complying with the require-ments of 10 C.F.R i 2.758 (and long af ter the time for doing so has elapsed).

Nor is any explanation offered for SOV's blanket assertion that the inter-rogatory .'may assist . . . in determining the adequacy ' of the licensee's

- maintenance program. The Board should reject SOV's motion to compel, just as it rejected the contention it clearly seems designed to serve, Interrogatory.5. Appended hereto as Attachment B is the portion of Licensee's application from which the interrogatory quotes, it is clear from the surrounding sentences that the quoted passage refers to the expected service life of those components, based on design codes, without consideration of maintenance. Without maintenance, the components are expected to last longer than 40 years;"(nlonetneless, such components are ,

included in the plant in-Service inspection and hiaintenance Programs, so that unexpected cge-related degradation will be identified and corrected if it occurs."

When thus read in context, the passage quoted in the interrogatory clearly has to do with setsice life and/or design codes, not maintenance. The Board rejected SOV's contentions which sought to litigate those two issues.7 It  ;

should likewise reject SOV's attempt to evade that earlier ruling through this motion to compel.

• 1'ermont )'ankee Nuclear Power Corporatio:(Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station), LBP-90-6, 31 NRC 85,100-104 (1990).

8/d. at 104.

6 hiotion at 3. bioreover, SOY poses the wrong query. The topic of SOV's sole admitted contention is not "the adequacy of the licensee's maintenance pwram"; rather,it is the much narrower question of the effectiveness of that proitram, during the extended term, to " maintain and/or determine and replace all components found to have aged to a point where they no longer meet the [ applicable] safety standards." See LBP-90-6 at 107. SOV's persistent attempts to push beyond it " age-and-maintenance" contention, to conduct a general review of every facet of Licensee's maintenance program, account for an appreciable portion of the discovery difficulties to date.

'LBP-90-6,31 NRC at 100-104 and 105-107.

,3 , ,

. q Interrogatory 6. IIere SOV even more blatantly seeks to resurrect its rejected " service life" contention. For the reasons discussed with respect to the immediately preceding interrogatory, the motion should be denied, laterrogatory 8. Licensee has already answered this question fully.

SOV's motion is thus moot and, for the reasons discussed in Section I.A infra, should be denied, laterrogatories 45 48. SOY offers no explanation for.its assertion that this series of interrogatories, dealing with probabilistic risk analysis of "the effect aging of equipment on the probabihty of accidents evaluated in the FSAR," has relevance either to the admitted contention or to the pending application itself. This failure is not surprising given the fact, noted in Vermont Yankee's objection to Interrogatory 4-5, that SOV's questions are doubly flawed. First, the Board has already specifically rejected SOV's contention that called for a probabilistic risk assessment of aging effects.'

Second, as Licensee previously noted,"the grant or amendment of an operat-ing license is not dependent upon the probability of occurrence of any

" accident evaluated in the FSAR."' The motion should be denied.

Interrogatory 52. For the reasons disvissed in Section I.B infra, SOV's motion should be denied.

.i

l. */d.,31 NRC at i12-114.

'The Commission has yet to adopt (which is not to predict that it will ever adopt) a probabilistic approach to licensing. Rather (and at the risk of some oversimplification), operating licenses are granted on a deterministic syllo-L gism, one that assumes that specific accidents will occur and demands that the design incorporate the capability to confine the consequences of those acci-dents to defined parameters. Sec genec -Ily. Boston Edison Company (Pilgrim l Nuclear Power Station), DD 87-14,26 NRC 87,96-97 (1987). As the pro-posed amendment in this proceeding effects no change in the design, no issue l regarding the adequacy of the design to meet the design basis accidents could l

have been raised (and none is included in Contention VII).

It is true that, in connection with the application, Vermont Yankee performed an analysis of whether the proposed amendment portended "a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated" within the meaning of 10 C.F.R. i 50,92(c)(1). This assessment, however, relates only to the question of "no significant hazards,"

which in turn relates only to the question of whether issuance of the amend-ment by the Staff need await the conclusion of any contested proceedings; it does not relate to any issue litigable in a contested proceeding.

4 1

( r Indtrogatory 54. For the reasons discussed in Section I.B. Infra SOV's l motion should be denied. .

Interrogatory 62. Licensee fully answered the questions. SOV's motion  !

is thus moot and, for the reasons discussed in Section i.A. infra, st.ould be denied, t

interrogatories 64-66. Licensee fully answered these questions. SOV's motion is thus most and, for the reasons discussed in Section I.A infra, should be denied.

n interrogatory 79. For the reasons discussed in Section I.B infra, SOV's ,

motion should be denied.

Interrogatories 80 and 81. Licensee fully answered these questions.

SOV's motion is thus most and, for the reasons discussed in Section I.A infra, should be denied. See also Section I.B infra. 3 Interrngalory 82. For the reasons discussed in Sec; ion I.B. Infra, SOV's motion should be denied.

interrogatories 83 and 84 Licensee fully answered these questions.

SOV's motion is thus most and, for the reasons discussed is See:lon I.A infra, ,

should be denied. See also Section I.B infra.

l. Interrogatories 85-87. For the reasons discussed in Section I.B infra, ,

SOV's motion should be denied.

Interrogatories 88-90. Licensee fully answered these grestions. SOV's motion is thus most and, for the reasons discussed in Section 1.A infra. should be denied. See also Section I.B infra.

1 Interrogatory 93. For the reasons discussed in Section I.B infra, SOV's l- motion should be denied.

Interrogatory 94. Licensee fully answered the question. SOV's motion is thus moot and, for the reasons discussed in Section I.A infra, should be l denied. See also Section I.B infra.

Interrogatory 95. For the reasons discussed in Section I.B infra. SOV's

• motion should be denied,

i C.

i interrogatory 96. Licensee fully answered the question. SOV's motion is thus moot and, for the reasons discussed in Section 1.A infra, should be denied. See .also Section I.B infra, laterrogatories97-100. For the reasons discussed in Section f..B infra, SOV's motion should be denied.

Interrogatories 101,102,104 and 105. Licensee fully answered these l questions. SOV's motion is thus most and, for the reasons discussed in Section I.A infra, should be denied. See also Section I.B supra.

By its attorneys, i .

e**' .aA m R. K. Gad :11 -

Jeffrey P. Trout Ropes & Gray One International Place Boston, Massachusetts 02110 Telephone: 617-951-7520 Dated: August 2,1990.

4 I

l l

l l

l L

.< g i

CathilLO vsunc .

" " ' I

'90 ALG -7 A8 :22 ASLAB - MAIL RKCAB.VY OrI(Cf 0F SECRL1rJY 00CKEltNG A si Hvici DHANCH I

' i Certificate of Serilce I, R. K. Gad III, hereby certify that on August 2,1990, I made service of the within answer, by mailing copies thereof, first class mail, postage prepaid, as follows:

Robert M. Lazo, Esquire Jerry R. Kline '

Chairman Administrative judge Atomic Safety and Licensing Board .\tomic Safety and Licensing Board .

g U.S.N.R.C. U.S.N,R.C.

. Washington, D.C. 20555 Washington. D.C. 20555 Frederick 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 Anthony Z. Roisman, Esquire Ann P. Ilodgdon, Esquire Cohen, Milstein & liausfeld Patricia A. Jehle, Esouire .

!L '

Suite 600 U.S.N.R.C.

l l 1401 New York Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20555 ,

Washington, D.C. 20005 l Kurt Janson, Esquire Vermont Department of Public Service 120 State Street Montpelier, Vermont 05602

, )J ,Q-( vi {

R. K. O1d !!!

r

. I

. . _. . _ ~ _ .

N .* ATTACHMENT A

~

Institute of I Nuclear Power i Operations j Suite 1500 1100 Circle 75 Parkway Atlanta. Georoia 30339 3064

. Telephone 404 953 3600 July 19,1990

( '

Mr. Frank Helin L Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corporation Rd 5, Box 109 ]

Ferry Road l Brattleboro, VT 05301

Dear Mr. Helin:

In response to your inquiry, the Nuclear Plant Rellability Data System (NPRDS) is a comprehensive industrywide data base housed on INDO's computer and managed by INPO oa behalf of all U. S. nuclear utilities.. The data base is copyrighted. INPO and its member utilities reporting plan data to NPROS consider this data to be confidential commercial information. INPO and its member, participant, and agreement organizations are instructed to not release such information publicly.

As a further point, in INPO's contract with the NRC that allows NRC access to the data base the

. following paragraph addresses NPRDS proprietary information:  ;

INPO understands thr.t the NRC and NRC cortractors will treat ' unit specific" (i.e., NPRDS j

data that identify a specific nuclear plant or utility) Information on the NPROS system as confidential commercial information. Unit specific Information would he publicly disclosed only if (1) the data which forms a basis for the regulatory decision appears in an NRC (

( document addressing a safety concern, and (2) an NRC Office Director determines i

pursuant to 10 CFR 2.790(b) (5) that the public's right to know that basis warrants the .

l release of the data, Unless a compelling immediate safety concem dictates otherwise, INPO will be given reasonable advance notification of the NRC decision to make the specific data public on a given date so that INPO will have the opportunity to exercise its legal options regarding such disclosure. The letter imm W. J. Dircks (NRC) to Z. T. Pate (INPO) dated November 18,1985 provides additional background information and

' guidance.

~

Please contact me if you have any further questions. ,

Sincerely, AngeAna S. Howard Vice President ,

Industry Relations and Information Services ASH:cna w -.. , , . _ , , - , . - . - + -

l

((" ATTACIIMENT B l 3.4.1.4 Feeirculatien H eine Syster

, The original Recirculation Ilping System at Vermont Yankee was l

' susceptible to intergranular stress corrosion cracking (ICSCC) in the areas ,

affected by welding. This was a phenomenon conrnon to all WRs. During an -

outage which began in 1985, the recirculation piping was completely replaced  ;

with a material which is nonsusceptible to 10$00. The new material, in concert with the improved welding techniques used in the replacement, provides

. assurance that ICSCC will not be a prcblem in the Reactor Coolant System.

piping in the future.

3.4.2 Other Mechanient Corrponents The passive components (tanks, pump ccsings, and valve bodies) -

associated with saf ety-related systems are designed to the same codes as the '

components that comprise the Feactor Ccolant System pressure boundary. Also,  ;

consideration was given to possible aging ef f ects of corrosion, erosion, and I therrnal cycling f atigue. Therefore, the expected service life of tnese passive components is greater than 40 years, as is the Reactor Coolant System

, , boundary. Nevertheless, such components are included in the plar.t In-Service

. Inspection and Maintenance Programs, so that unexpected age-related ,

degradation will be identified and corrected if it occurs. Many of the active (rnoving or rotating) mechanical components, on the other hand, are expected to wear out and be periodically replaced during the plant's operating lifetime.

These components are also periodically inspected and maintained under the In-Service Inspection / Testing and Maintenance Programs. Age-related i

' degradation will theref ore be identifled and corrected, and component f unctional capability main' ained.

In summation, passive mechanical compenents are designed such that they c are not expected to be replaced over a 40-year operating life while the functional capability of active components will be maintained through maintsnance and/or periodic replacement. Accordingly, it can be concluded that saf ety-related mechanical components are designed to function through the perimd of the proposed amendment and beyond or will be inspected and maintained such as. to assure continued functional capability.

7566R