ML20058K739

Motion to Compel Answers to Document Production Requests (Vermont Set 1).* State Moves to Compel Licensee to Produce Documents Denied to State of VT Because of Licensee Limited & Improper Interpretation of Scope.W/Certificate of Svc

ML20058K739
Person / Time
Site:	Vermont Yankee File:NorthStar Vermont Yankee icon.png
Issue date:	06/26/1990
From:	Janson K VERMONT, STATE OF
To:	Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
References
CON-#390-10576 OLA-4, NUDOCS 9007110137
Download: ML20058K739 (62)

Text

,

DOCKETED USHRC h UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

'o5 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION before the 90 JUN 28 P2:12 i ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSINO BOARD ,y,..,  : y cc ru, I

In the Matter of )

)

VERMONT YANKEE NUCLEAR ) Docket No. 50-271-OLA-4 POWER CORPORATION ) (Operating License

) Extension)

(Vermont Yankee Nuclear ) j' Power Station) )

l

. MOTION TO COMPEL ANSWERS TO DOCUMENT PRODUCTION REQUESTS j' (VERMONT SET NO.1)

Pursuant to 10 C.F.R. 5 2.740(f), Vermont moves that the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (" Board") enter an order compelling the licensee, Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corporation (" Vermont Yankee"), to give proper responses to and to allow discovery of those of its " Document Production Requests Propounded by the State of Vermont to the Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corporation (Set No.1)" as ll are set forth herein. The document production requests were served by federal i o i express mail on May 7,1990; the responses were served by mail on June 11, 1990.2 i

1 ,

l The responses were served untimely, being due June 8,1990.

9007110137 900626 1 o PDR ADOCK 0500 1 l .-

0 '

L

y -

i 6

I. Introduction Vc w;nt relies upon and respectfully refers the Board to the arguments of. Its nrior Mut: o ^o Compel filed on June 14, 1990. To the extent the Vermont  !

l Document Pmject'yn Requests (Set No.1) rely on the Vermont Interrogatories (Set l l

No.1).2 tir 6,guments to compel proper responses to those interrogatories, set forth j q

l. in Vermont's Motion to Compel of June 14, are incorporated in this motion. This i (i

r Motion to Compel also incorporates the experience of attempting to conduct discovery  ;

i on the basis of licensee's responses. Difficulties experienced by a team of four  !

Vermont representatives who conducted discovery at the Vermont Yankee Nuclear  ;

Plant during the week of June 18 to 22,1990, are included herein, i

II. General Arguments i

i A. The Scope of the Contention i Vermont moves to compel the licensee to produce documents , denied i

Vermont because of the licensee's limited and improper interpretation of the scope of- )

, Contention VII. This motion includes specific documents identified in Attachment A t

{ to this motion, the specific documents included as examples below, as well as those categories of documents in the individual Requests for which the arguments set forth below reference this section.

2 " Interrogatories Propounded by the State of Vermont to the Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corporation (Set No.1)," served on April 27, 1990.

2 i

P

'O

le In the process of requesting documents for inspection and copying, Vermont discovered that a significant difference exists in interpretation of the scope of this proceeding. This difference of interpretation centers on two premises. The first difference relates to the scope of " maintenance." The licensee takes a narrow.

interpretation of maintenance, claiming that it encompasses only those activities of its instrument and control (I&C) and maintenance departments. For example, Vermont Yankee opposes document production requests related to activities of the construction i

department, since Vermont Yankee does not consider those activities to be maintenance. Apparently this department accomplishes the more major activities and modifications during outages. While the licensee may not consider these activities to be maintenance, Vermont believes all these activities are within the scope of the licensee's activities "to maintain, determine and replace components found to have aged," and thus .within the scope of Contention VII.

Every plant modification, regardless of which organizational department accomplishes the work, is potentially related to maintaining the aging plant. For example, Vermont requested and was denied EDCR 8123. This EDCR is referenced on the maintenance history record for Valves V2-27A and 96A. These are feedwater check valves of the type which have failed the containment leakage ra:e test due to aging and improperly maintained seals. Valves V2 27A and 96A were changed from Walworth Valves to Anchor Darling Valves by EDCR 81-23, but Valves V2 27B and 96B were not. Valve V2-96A has failed its Appendix J Type C leak test four out of the last five tests. Vermont needs EDCR 81-23 to determine if maintenance was a consideration in the replacement of Valves V2 27A and 96A which have subsequently failed by leakage.

3 1

. l

m

(,

i j

i l Another example of Vermont Yankee's limited departmental interpretation concerns procurement documentation. Vermont Yankee objects to producing procurement documents (see Request Nos. 35 and 36) because procurement is rot related to maintenance in the eyes of Vermont Yankee. However, each maintenance request that changes materials includes procurement documents. Vermont was unable ,

to determine the quality assurance requirements and safety classification of parts l without information from Requests Nos. 35 and 36. Such quality assurance and safety classification information is required to determine if aging components are replaced c properly by maintenance.

Yet another example of Vermont Yankee's limited departmental interpretation of " maintenance" involves access to procedures. The licensee attempts i to limit discovery to the set of procedures to which the licensee has granted access in response to Request No.15. These do not include 2000 series procedures because these are operations department procedures, not " maintenance" procedures. However, the operations department performs activities concerning maintaining and determining

~

aging equipment. An example of such activity is backwashing demineralizers (OP 2112), the subject of PIR 89 08. In the event describe in PIR 89 08, an auxiliary operator (not a maintenance craftsperson) conducted the backwash of the RCWU demineralizer such that radioactivity was released causing personnel exposure and plant contamination. The root cause, though not evaluated es such by the licensee, I was improper reliance on personnel expertise and inadequate procedural guidance.

1 l This is a demonstration of the inadetiuacy of the licensee's maintenance program, but l

the licensee would claim that it was not maintenance because it was performed by i

operations personnel. The Board must reject the licensee's ploy of elevating labels L

4

_- e _

over substance, and thus the Board should compel the licensee to respond to Request

. No.15 by granting access to all plant procedures.

The second area of disagreement concerns Vermont's needs in order to prove an impact on safety (Board hiemorandum and Order of hiay 24,1990, at 11).

In order to prove such impact, Vermont must have access to all aspetu of the plant's '

current and original licensing and design bases. Therefore, Vermont must reach not i only the Engineering Design Basis hianual, but also all source documents including specifications and calculations.' Vermont has asked for, but has not received, the design basis accident radiological calculation. Vermont needs this calculation because

~

Vermont believes that the failure V2 96A to maintain containment integrity is contrary to the assumptions of containment integrity in that calculation. Vermont must have this calculation to verify this assertion and to determine the effect of radiological doses of the as-found leakage rate of this valve V2 96A. Vermont needs broad j latitude to investigate the safety significance. For example, if the plant is modified, was the modification to correct a safety deficiency? Was the safety deficiency a result l of inadequate maintenance? If a nonconformance report (NCR) was written, is the i

l nonconformance an example of failure to " maintain, determine and replace L

l components" such that safety standards were violated? Were nonconforming parts installed as part of an inadequately reviewed maintenance request? Were L

8 Access to the Engineering Design Basis hianual is granted in Vermont Yankee's response to Document Production Request 6. However, access is not granted to source documents such as calculations and specifications. In Request 34,

. access to specifications is objected to. However, in Vermont Interrogatory 6, licensee

! states that source documents may be inspected and copied. Having agreed to such l inspection and copying, the licenste should be compelled to make clear responses by

! granting access to design basis source documents in Request 6 and removing its objection to Request 34.

5

a :O i

nonconforming parts used because of confusion related to Vermont Yankee's lack of a I clear equipment list? These are all examples of areas Vermont believes it must reach in accordance with Contention VII, but which Vermont was denied by the licensee's 4

limited interpretation of scope. l The licensee makes clear its limited interpretation in its objections to Requests 75 to 82. All of these documents are necessary for Vermont to prove or disprove that the failure of the painting topcoat in the drywell would defeat the safety function of the ECCS by fouling the stainers. Without the requested information, Vermont cannot evaluate this, yet the licensee would deny Vermont access. Another example is the reactor trip of March 21, 1990 caused by failure of the turbine mechanical / hydraulic pressure control system and reported in Plant inhouse Report (PIR) 90 02. The root cause of the reactor trip is not identified by the licensee as a  ;

failure of the maintenance program, but that in fact is the case, because the first five recommendations for corrective action involve performing maintenance activities on the system. Vermont was granted access to PIR 90-02, but was refused access to PIR 88 05 which is referenced in PIR 90-02 as a similar event occurring during startup in

June 1988. Vermont needs access to PIR 88-05 to determine if maintenance recommendations in 1988 were left unattended and then resulted in the reactor trip in 1990.

H. Use of 'all responsive documents" and Failure to Identify Documents In response to forty nine of these document production requests, the licensee stated that "all responsive documents" will be produced. This response is unacceptable for two reasons. First, it is open to licensee's interpretation. Vermont 6

(

has already experienced problems in the licensee's limited interpretation, as described in Section II.A above. Vermont Yankee should be compelled to change its response to "all requested documents" for the specific request rather than "all responsive docements."

Secondly, the phrase *all responsive documents" is used by the licensee to avoid identifying documents. Vermont cannot ask for documents it cannot name.

The use of "all responsive documents' delays the discovery process, further draining Vermont's limited resources. Ucensee should be compelled to identify each document to which it is referring.

• In Requests Nos.110, Ill,112,113,114,115,116,117,118,119,120,121 and 122, Vermont specifically asked that documents be identified. Vermont Yankee has ignored this in every case and must be compelled to identify these documents.

C, Use of 'all relevant documents' The licensee uses the phrase "all relevant documents" in response to Requests Nos. 47,48,59 and 64. Vermont representatives learned upon trying to discover documents that the licensee's meaning was to exclude those documents that did not meet its interpretation of maintenance (see Section II.A above). For example, in Request No. 48, Vermont asks for a copy of Vermont Yankee's evaluation of 125 INPO SOER's referred to in BVY 89 86. When Vermont representatives attempted to inspect this information they were provided with a subset of information which the licensee claimed was " maintenance related." Vermont was not provided with an index, nor any method to determine whether such SOER responses would assist in demonstrating its case. Because of the licensee's limited interpretation of the scope 7

o .

of this case, its judgement on what is maintenance related cannot be accepted.

Therefore, the licensee should be compelled to produce for discovery "all documents" requested by interrogatories 47, 48, 59 and 64.

III. Licensee's Objections The licensee's objections are discussed by category below. Often, the licensee offers to produce documents for inspection and copying despite offering objection. For these cases we argue that the objection should not be left standing.

Where no document production is offered, we argue that such production must be made. In all cases, we argue that licensee's objections should be overruled.

A. Objection on the Grounds of Overbroad and invasion of Privacy The licensee objects that our requests for personnel records (Nos. 2,3,4,5 and 8) are overbroad and an invasion of privacy. In each request, we ask for performance evaluations, ratings by supervisors, qualification records, training records and test scores. Each request is for a specific position in the maintenance process:

No. 2 - Supervisors; No. 3 hiaintenance Craftspersons; No. 4 Contract hiaintenance Craftspersons; No. 5 Control Room Operators; and No. 8, hiaintenance Request Reviewers.d Each of these positions is important to the maintenance process.

d Vermont Yankee objects to information regarding Control Room Operators and hiaintenance Request Reviewers on the grounds of relevancy. The relevance of Control Room Operators was stated for Vermont Yankee in Vermont Interrogatory No. 5 with the notation, "Please note: The information for operators is requested based on opinions reported in the Report #3 88 of LRS Incorporated, quoted in sub-part j of Contention VII." Operators were reported as stating that obsolete and degraded equipment was replaced. Information is needed regarding operator's background in order to prepare for possible depositions.

8

. e 1

i Vermont needs the information for supervisors, craftspersons and contract craftspersons to gather data on the present experience levels, the given basis in IR 89-80 for the adequacy of licensee's present program. Furthet, Vermont needs the information for all the categories in order to prepare fo/ possible depositions.

Vermont shares the licensee's concern for se privacy of the individuals and agrees to, and so requests the Board for, a protective order in accordance with 10 l C.F.R. 6 2.740(c)(5) or (6). Since Vermont agrees that disclosure can be limited to a method suitable to the Board, the licensee's objection should be overruled.

H. Objection on the Grounds of Overbroad and Unduly Hurdensome The licensee objects that Requests Nos. 17,18,19, 47, 48 and 63 are overbroad and/or unduly burdensome. Vermont has understood from the outset the difficulty in reviewing Vermont Yankee's maintenance program. We agree that j

granting access to all the documents in these requests constitute a burden. However, this burden is part of the consequence on relying on the maintenance program as the basis for an operating license extension. Vermont needs to be able to sample any of these documents in a manner similar to the NRC Maintenance Team to show the absence of a sufficiently effective and comprehensive program to maintain, determine I and replace aging components and to show that there is no reasonable assurance that safety standards will be met. That Vermont Yankee has chosen a hard road is not I

The status of maintenance request reviews is identified as a maintenance program weakness by the NRC Maintenance Team in IR 89-80 at 12. Again, the information requested on reviewer's performance is required to prepare for possible depositions.

9 j

E I

then grounds to complain about the difficulty of the path. The requests cannot be considered overbroad and unduly burdensome; the objection should be overruled, 4

s C. Objection on the Grounds that Environmental Qualification Documents are Not with the Scope of the Admitted Contention The licensee objects to Requests Nos. 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31 and 54 on 7 the grounds that the subjects requested are not within the scope of the admitted i

l contention. The subjects of these requests are emironmental qualification in

accordance with 10 C.F.R. 6 50.49, environmental conditions of the plant and determination of qualified life Licensee should be compelled to produce the requested documents for the reasons stated in Section II.B of Vermont's First hiotion to Compel, which is adopted herein by reference.

In addition the licensee should be compelled to produce environmental qualification documents (the subjects of Requests Nos. 25, 26, 27, 28, 55, 56 and in part 18) for the following reason. In its discovery at Vermont Yankee Vermont was denied access to the EQ hiaintenance History portion of the hiaintenance History File (Vermont Yankee Procedure AP 0300), ostensibly for the reas'o n the "EQ" was in the title. These EQ hiaintenance History records are part of the "Visicard system" to

. which the licensee claimed to grant access in Request No.18, but failed to produce a

upon request.5 Vermont was denied the hiaster Equipment List for Emironmentally Qualified equipment (Request No. 25) despite the licensee's specific statement to the NRC in BVY 89 75 that this list is used to suffice for the lack of a single master 8

The "co op student" with whom Vermont representatives were allowed to speak indicated it was his understanding that all "EQ" information was "off limits."

10 1

o e .

l

) .

equipment list (" Weakness" No. 6 of sub part b to Contention VII)._ This Master EQ List is also referenced as one of the bases for classifying documents Vermont Yankee's policy document, " Maintenance Program," date December 29, 1989.

Vermont was also denied access to em>ironmental qualification files (Requests Nos. 26,27,28,55 and 56). These files are needed in order to verify that the licensee has captured all maintenance requirements and is performing them.' If it L were determined that such requirements were not cuptured and performed, then the qualified life of such equipment would be questionable. This would represent three i

, aspects related to Contention VII. First, failure to capture and perform this maintenance would demonstrate a failure of the maintenance program per se.

Second, failure to capture and perform this maintenance would (or could) be the cause of component failure, thus demonstrating the inability of the program to

" maintain, determine and replace aging components." Third, failure to capture and perform this maintenance could result in defeating the safety standard of the plant

. ' It cannot be claimed that all maintenance requirements resulting from emironmental r,ualification are provided in vendor maintenance manuals. The licer ae's response to Vermont Interrogatories Nos. 49 and 50 specifically list "EQ l

File. in addition to vendor manuals. (We note that licensee has attempted to cover the mink in its "EQ" armor by its response to Document Production Requests 55 and i 56, which refer to Interrogatories 49 and 50. However, in Nos. 55 and 56 the licensee should be compelled to provide all sources listed in Interrogatories 49 and 50.) The experience of Vermont's technical consultants is that often vendors record l these requirements in the qualification documentation, and vendor maintenance manuals do not get updated with this information.

11 l

l a

i whicli requires such maintenance to be performed. Without access to this 1 information, Vermont cannot develop its case completely.'

D. Objection that Activities in the Construction Period are Not within the Scope of the Admitted Contention The licensee objects that Requests Nos. 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45,46 and 69 are not with the scope of the admitted contention. Each of these requests seeks, in part, information regarding the construction period. Vermont has provided its arguments against this objection in Section II.C of Vermont's First Motion to Compel, which is incorporated herein by reference. For those reasons, the licensee should be compelled to produce the documents identified in these requests.

Ill. Specific Document Production Requests Request .

2. For each and every supervisor who has been responsible for maintenance and surveillance activities at the Vermont Yankee plant at any time since 7

Vermont was provided with copies of Section 1 of the qualification documentation reports (ODRs). This section is entitled, " Maintenance Requirements / Intervals," and is riart of the documentation prepared by Vermont Yankee. The majority of these sections state, "This equipment does not require special maintenance / surveillance as the basis for qualification." Vermont wishes to verify these statements through review of the source documentation, the qualification reports. The impression of Vermont's technical experts is that some of these reports I contain maintenance requirements which are not listed. (However, Vermont cannot give specific examples without access to the reports.) Also, the licensee has stated in response to Vermont Interrogatory No. 53, "VYNPS has the qualifications and expertise within its staff to make these types of assessments [to ignore vendor maintenance requirements)." Vermont intends to dispute this statement at hearing, but must inspect qualification reports to determine if this judgement has been exercised in the preparation of Section 1 of the ODRs.

12

January 1,1988, as identified in response to Vermont Interrogatory (Set No. I

1) No. 2, please produce for inspection and copying all personnel files, including, but not limited to, performance evaluations, ratings by supervisors, qualification records, and training records and test scores.

Response

Ucensee objects to this request on the grounds that it is overbroad and i improperly invades the privag of the individuals in question, and pursuant to 10 C.F.R. 5 2.740(c) requests a protective order that the same not be disclosed.

Without waiving these objections, but rather expressly relying upon the same, Ucensee states that those documents identified in Ucensee's answer to SOV's Interrogatory No. 2(g) will be produced.

Argument:

See the argument set forth in Section III.A Request 3.- For 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 identified in response to Vermont Interrogatory (Set No.1) No. 3, please produce for inspection and copying all personnel files, including, but not limited to, performance evaluations, ratings by supervisors, qualification records, and training records and test scores. ,

l

Response

Ucensee objects to this request on the grounds that it is overbroad and improperly invades the privacy of the individuals in question, and pursuant to 10 C.F.R. 2.740(c) requests a protective order that the same not be disclosed.

Without waiving these objections, but rather expressly relying upon the same, Licensee states that such resumes and training records as are available will be produced.

1 13

I F

I Argument:

See the argument set forth in Section III.A.

Request

4. For 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 identified in response to Vermont Interrogatory (Set No.1) No. 4, please produce for inspection and copying all personnel files, including, but not limited to, performance evaluations, ratings by Vermont Yankee personnel, qualitication records, and training records and test scores.

Response

Licensee objects to this guestion on the grounds that it is overbroad and improperly invades the pnvacy of the individuals in question, and pursuant to 10 C.F.R. I 2.740(c) requests a protective order that the same not be disclosed.

Without waiving these objections, but rather expressly relying upon the same, Licensee states that those documents identified in Licensee's answer to SOV's Interrogatory No. 4(g) will be produced. ,

Argument:

See the argument set forth in Section III.A.

Request

5. For each and every licensed control room operator, senior control operator, and shift supervisor who is currently employed at the Vermont Yankee plant, or has been in your employ at any time smce January 1,1988, as identified in response to Vermont Interrogatory (Set No.1) No. 5, please produce for inspection and copying all personnel files, including, but not limited to, performance evaluations, ratings by supervisors, qualification records, and training records and test scores.

14 l

t

Response

Licensee objects to the request as irrelevant. Ucensee further objects to this request on the grounds that it is overbroad and improperly invades the privacy of the individuals in question, and pursuant to 10 C.F.R. f 2.740(c) requests a protective order that the same not be disclosed.

Without waiving these objections, but rather expressly relying upon the same, Licensee states that those documents identified in Licensee's answer to SOV's Interrogatory No. 5(c) will be produced.

Argument:

1 See the argument set forth in Section III.A.

Request

6. Please produce for inspection and copying all documents setting forth the current licensing basis for each structure, system and component of the Vermont Yankee plant, identified in response to Vermont Interrogatory (Set No.1) No. 6. If m response to Vermont Interrogatory (Set No.1) No. 6 '

Vermont Yankee has not identified any or all documents requested to be identified by that interrogatory, produce for inspection and copying all such documents.

Response

Licensee objects to this request, on the ground that the request is not relevant to the admitted contention. Without waiving this objection, but rather expressly relying upon the same, Licensee will produce the Engineermg Design Basis Manual identified in Interrogatory No. 6.

L Argument:

See the argument set forth in Section II.A.

Request

7. For structures, systems and components for which the current licensing basis is different from the licensing basis when the Vermont Yankee plant was originally granted its operating license, produce for inspection and copying 15 l

l 1

i o

• i cach and every document, identified in response to Vermont Interrogatory (Set No.1) No. 7, which caused the licensmg basis to change from its  :

original basis. If in response to Vermont Interrogatory (Set No.1) No. 7 Vermont Yankee has not identified any or all documents requested to be identified by that interrogatory, produce for inspection and copying all such t documents.

Response

1-All responsive documents presently known by Licensee to be within its possession or control will be produced.

Argument:

See the argument set forth in Section II.B.

Request

8. For each and every person who has been responsible for reviewing maintenance requests or work orders with regard to the current licensing basis of structures, systems and components, or with regard to the regulatory or safety impact of the request, at the Vermont Yankee plant, at any time since January 1,1988, as identified in response to Vermont Interrogatory (Set No.1) No. 8, please produce for inspection and copying all personnel files, including, but not limited to, performance evaluations, ratings by supenisors, qualification records, and training records and test scores.

Response

Licensee objects to this request as irrelevant. Licensee further objects to this request on the grounds that it'is overbroad and improperly invades the privacy of the individuals in question, and pursuant to 10 C.F.R. f 2.740(c) requests a protective order that the same not be disclosed.

Without waiving these objections, but rather expressly relying upon the same, Licensee states that those documents identified in Licensee's answer to SOV's Interrogatory No. 8(g) will be produced.

Argument:

See the argument set forth in Section III.D.

16 l

( l t

l Request i

10. Please produce for inspection and copying all the results of quality assurance i audits since January 1,1988, identified in response to Vermont Interrogatory (Set No.1) No.10, 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. These results include, but are not limited to, audit reports, reports to management, audit check lists, informal l check lists and hand written notes, if in response to Vermont Interrogatory (Set No.1) No.10 Vermont Yankee has not identified any or all documents requested to be identified by that interrogatory, produce for inspection and j copying all such documents.

I l Response:

All responsive documents presently known by Licensee to be within its possession or control will be produced. -<

Argument: I See the argument set forth in Section II.B. The licensee should be compelled to identify and produce for inspection and copying reports to management, audit check lists, informal check lists and hand written notes.

Request

11. Produce for inspection and copying all the results of quality assurance audits since January 1,1988, identified in response to Vermont Interrogatory (Set No.1) No.11, which reviewed the adequacy of the process of maintaining the current licensing basis in a current and correct condition. These results include, but are not limited to, audit reports, reports to management, audit l check lists, informal check lists and hand written notes. If in response to Vermont Interrogatory (Set No.1) No.11 Vermont Yankee has not identified any or all documents requested to be identified by that interrogatory, produce for inspection and copying all such documents.

Response

Licensee objects to this request on the grounds that the subjes . hereof is not within the scope of the admitted contention.

! 17

o *

?

Without waiving this objection, but rather expressly relying upon .

the same, Licensee will produce all responsive documents presently known to be within its possession or control, t

Argument:

See the argument set forth in Section II.B. The licensee should be compelled to identify and produce for inspection and copying reports to management, ,

i audit check lists, informal check lists and hand written notes.

Request

15. Please produce for inspection and copying each and every document, in addition to those in document production request 12 above, which comprises the maintenance program upon which the licensee relles for the license extension, as identified in response to Vermont Interrogatory (Set No.1) No.

14. If in response to Vermont Interrogatory (Set No.1) No.14 Vermont Yankee has not identified any or all documents requested to be identified by that interrogatory, produce for inspection and copying all such documents. ,

Response: i Each of the procedures identified in the response to Interrogatory No.

14, and any documents referenced therein, will be produced.

Argument:

See the argument set forth in Section II.A. The licensee should be compelled to produce for inspection and copying all plant procedures as remedy for its limited and incorrect interpretation of the scope of this proceeding.

1 1

Request

16. Please provide copies of the maintenance documents produced since or as a result of the maintenance team inspection, as identified in response to Vermont Interrogatory (Set No.1) No.15. If in response to Vermont Interrogatory (Set No.1) No.15 Vermont Yankee has not identified any or all documents requested to be identified by that interrogatory, produce for l inspection and copying all such documents.

1 18 l

l

Response

All responsive documents presently known by Licensee to be within its possession or control will be produced.  ;

Argument:

See the argument set forth in Section II.B.

Request

17. Please produce for inspection and copying the following documents, generated or originated from January 1,1985 to the present:

a. All maintenance requests

b. All nonconformance Reports (NCRs)

c. All Licensee Event Reports (LERs), and evaluation material (PRO's, PORC minutes, etc.)

d. All Engineering Design Change Requests (EDCRs)

e. All Plant Design Change Requests (PDCRs)

f. All Plant Alteration Requests (PARS)

g. All Temporary Modifications (TMs)

h. All Temporary Mechanical Bypass Requests (MBRs)

1. All Temporary Lifted Lead and Jumper Requests (LL/JRs)

j. All Potential Reportable Occurrence Reports (PROS) ,

k. All Plant Information Reports (PIRs)

1. All Plant Performance Monitoring Memoranda

Response

Licensee objects to this request as being overbroad and unduly burdensome and also on the ground that some of the items requested clearly lack relevance to the admitted contention.

Without waiving these objections, but rather expressly relying upon the same, Licensee will produce the documents requested in items a., h., i., and 1., and those of items b., c., J., and k, that arise out of a maintenance operation.

l l 19 l

I 1

Argument: ,

See the arguments set forth in Sections II.A and III.B. We need access to 1

all these documents for the reasons stated, especially to be able to show the relation of maintenance to plant safety. The licensee should be compelled to grant access to r all the requested documents.

I Request (

f 18. Please prodde a copy of the index to the maintenance and surveillance t

records ("The Visicard System") for each Vermont Yankee plant structure, system and component, and produce for inspection and copying the surveillance and maintenance records system for each plant structure, system and component. Included in this request are the surveillance and maintenance records referred to in Section 3.2.2.3 of Attachment 2 of the application.

Response

Licensee objects to this request (except with respect to the index, which l

will be produced) as being overbroad and unduly burdensome.

Without waiving these objections, but rather expressly relying upon the

! same, Ucensee produce the documents requested.

Argument:

See the arguments set forth in Sections III.B and III.C.

Request

19. Please provide a copy of the index for vendor technical manuals, and l

produce the vendor technical manuals for inspection and copying.

20

Response

Licensee objects to this request (except with respect to the index, which will be produced) as being overbroad and unduly burdensome.

Argument:

See the argument set forth in Section III.B.

Request

23. Please produce for inspection and copying 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, but not limited to, all test reports, licensee event reports, test results, calibration records, internal memoranda, maintenance requests, correspondence, and  ;

contractor records.

Response

Licensee objects to this request on the grounds that the subject thereof is not within the scope of the admitted contention.

Without waiving this objection, but rather expressly relying upon the same, Licensee will produce all responsive documents presently known to be within its possession or control.

Argument:

See the arguments set forth in Sections II.A and II.B.

Request

25. Please provide a copy of the current or most recent Master Equipment List for Environmentally Oualified (EQ) equipment that is referenced in Enclosure 1 of BVY 89 75.

21

.lP

Response

Licensee objects to this request on the grounds that the subject thereof is not within the scope of the admitted contention.

Argument:

See the argument set forth in Section III.C.

Request

26. Please provide a copy of the index for all emironmental qualification documentation reports and qualification worksheets prepared in accordance with 10 CFR 50.49.

Response

Licensee objects to this request on the grounds that the subject thereof is net within the scope of the admitted contention.

Argument:

See the argument set forth in Section III.C.

Request

27. Please produce for inspection and copying the reports and qualification worksheets listed on the index in the foregoing document production request.

Include the reports and worksheets referred to in Section 3.2.2.2 of Attachment 2 of the application.

Response

Licensee objects to this request of the grounds that the subject thereof is not within the scope of the admitted contention.

Argument:

l See the argument set forth in Section llI.C.

22 1

og

c e

Request

28. Please produce for inspection and copying all documents identified as references in the qualification documentation reports produced in response to the foregoing document production request.

Response

Licensee objects to this request of the grounds that the subject thereof

is not within the scope of the admitted contention.

Argument:

See the argument set forth in Section III.C.

Reque.,t

29. Please provide copies of all documents which identify the environmental conditions of each area of the Vermont Yankee plant evaluated as part of your 10 CFR 50A9 evaluation, including those areas considered to be mild environments.

Response:  !

Licensee objects to this request of the grounds that the subject thereof is not within the scope of the admitted contention.

Argument:

l See the argument set forth in Section III.C.

Request i

30. Please provide copies of all documents not provided as part of the foregoing document production request which id<nfify the environmental conditions of '

each area of the Vermont Yankee plant which houses systems or

components "whose failure can cause or 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 i

l-

shutdown, or accident mitigation" (quoted from sub part (b) of the definition of structures, systems and components),

f Response:

Licensee objects to this request on the grounds that the subject thereof is not within the scope of the admitted contention.

Argument:

See the argument set forth in Section III.C.

Request

31. Please produce for inspection and copying:

a. All documents identified in response to Vermont Interrogatory (Set No.

1) No. 25, sub part b, which indicate the bases for the qualified life, design life and installed life of the structures, systems and components.

b. All documents identified in response to Vermont Interrogatory (Set No.

1) No. 25, sub-part c, which describe the manner in which qualified life, design life or installed life is determined and demonstrated for each structure, system or component,

c. All written procedures identified in response to Vermont Interrogatory (Set No.1) No. 25, sub part d, which govern the determination of qualified life, design life and installed life of each category of equipment,

d. All documents describing the results of 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 including audit reports, audit check lists, informal check lists and handwritten notes.

If in response to Vermont Interrogatory (Set No.-1) No. 25 Vermont Yankee has not identified any or all documents requested to be identified by that interrogatory, produce for inspection and copying all such documents.

Response

Licensee objects to this request on the grounds that the subject thereof is not within the scope of the admitted contention.

24

o

• t Argument:

See the argument set forth in Section III.C.

Request

32. Please produce for inspection and copying all documents available to you providing failure rate information on the structures, systems and components of the plant. Include documents which contain industry wide information, as well as documents which contain information specific to the Vermont Yankee plant.

Response

Interpreting

• failure rate information" in the same manner as in Licensce's answer to SOV's Interrogatory No. 26, Licensee will produce the documents identified in that response, other than the database. Licensee objects to the production of or access to the database referred to in the response to Interrogatory No. 26, on the ground that the database is the property of another (INPO).

Argument:

Licensee must be compelled to provide the INPO database because protecting this database grants an unfair advantage in the hearing to the licensee who has access to greater data than Vermont. Vermont is willing to enter into a protective agreement not to release such data to others outside this hearing.

Request l

L 33. Please produce for inspection and copying the failure rate data base being used for the IPE evaluation referred to in BVY 89100.

Response

Licensee objects to this request on the grounds that the subject thereof is not within the scope of the admitted contention.

25

l Argument:

See the argument set forth in Section II.A.

Request

34. Please produce for inspection and copying all purchase specifications for Vermont Yankee plant structures, systems and components. Provide a copy to the index for these specifications.

i

Response

Licensee objects to this request on the grounds that the subject thereof is not within the scope of the admitted contention.

Argument:

See the arguments set forth in Sections ll.A and Ill.D.

Request

35. Please produce for inspection and copying all documents as identified in response to Vermont Interrogatory (Set No.1) No. 28, establishing procurement quality control requirements for the structures, systems and components of the Vermont Yankee plant. If in response to Vermont Interrogatory (Set No.1) No. 28 Vermont Yankee has not identified any or all documents requested to be identified by that interrogatory, produce for inspection and copying all such documents.

i

Response

Licensee objects to this request on the grounds that the subject thereof )

is not within the scope of the admitted contention. l Argument:

See the arguments set forth in Sections II.A and III.D.

26 i

m _ - . . . . .

P Request

36. Please produce for inspection and copying all documents as identified in ,

response to Vermont Interrogatory (Set No.1) No. 29, which demonstrate that the procurement quality control requirements were satisfactorily completed. If in response to Vermont Interrogatory (Set No.1) No. 29 Vermont Yankee has not identified any or all documents requested to be identified by that interrogatory, produce for inspection and copying all such documents, r

Response

Licensee objects to this request on the grounds that the subject thereof is not within the scope of the admitted contention. t Argument:

See the arguments set forth in Sections II.A and III.D.

Request

37. Please produce for inspection and copying all documents as identified in response to Vermont Interrogatory (Set No.1) No. 30, establishing construction quality control and quality assurance requhements for the structures, systems and components of the Vermont Yankee plant. If in response to Vermont Interrogatory (Set No.1) No. 30 Vermont Yankee has not identified any or all documents requested to be identified by that interrogatory, produce for inspection and copying all such documents.

Response

Licensee objects to this request on the grounds that the subject thereof is not within the scope if the admitted contention.

Argument:

See the arguments set forth in Sections II.A and III.D.

27 l

i l

i ,

Request

38. Please produce for inspection and copying all documents as identified in response to Vermont Interrogatory (Set No.1) No. 31, which demonstrate that the construction quality control and quality assurance requirements were satisfied, if in response to Vermont Interrogatory (Set No.1) No. 31 Vermont Yankee has not identified any or all documents requested to be identified by that interrogatory, produce for inspection and copying all such documents.

Response

Licensee objects to this request on the grounds that the subject thereof is not within the scope of the admitted contention. i Argument:

See the arguments set forth in Sections II.A and III.D.  ;

Request j

41. Please produce for inspection and copying all documents as identified in response to Verment Intenogatory (Set No.1) No. 35, establishing the i storage requirements for each structure, system and component, before installation. If in response to Vermont Interrogatory (Set No.1) No. 35 '

Vermont Yankee has not identified any or all documents requested to be identified by that interrogatory, produce for inspection and copying all such q documents.  ;

Response: i Licensee objects to this request on the grounds that .ne subject thereof  ;

is not within the scope of the admitted contention. i Argument:

See the arguments set forth in Sections II.A and III.D.

1 28

e .  !

Request

42. Please produce for inspection and copying all documents as identified in response to Vermont Interrogatory (Set No.1) No. 36, establishing the procedures which established storage methods during the construction period.

If in response to Vermont Interrogatory (Set No.1) No. 36 Vermont Yankee has not identliicd any or all documents requested to be identified by that interrogatory, produce for inspection and copying all such documents.

Response

Licensee objects tot his request on the grounds that the subject thereof is not within the scope of the admitted contention.

1 Argument:

See the argument set forth in Section III.D.

Request

43. Please produce for inspection and copying all documents as identified in response to Vermont Interrogatory (Set No.1) No. 37, establishing the procedures which have established storage methods for structures, systems and components since initial operation. If in response to Vermont Interrogatory (Set No.1) No. 37 Vermont Yankee has not identified any or ,

all documents requested to be identified by that interrogatory, produce for inspection and copying all such documents.

Response:

• Licensee objects to this request on the grounds that the subject thereof is not within the scope of the admitted contention.

l Without waiving this objection, but rather expressly relying upon the l same, Licensee will produce all responsive documents presently known to be l within its possession or control.

1-l I

Argument:

See the arguments set forth in Sections II.A and III.D.

l 29 l

l~

C i Request  ;

44 Please produce for inspection and copying all documents as identified in response to Vermont Interrogatory (Set No.1) No. 38, which verify the manner in which structures, systems and components are stored pnor to installation. If in response to Vermont Interrogatory (Set No.1) No. 38 Vermont Yankee has not identified any or all documents requested to be identified by that interrogatory, produce for inspection and copying all such documents. i

Response

Licensee objects to this request on the grounds that the subject thereof is not within the scope of the admitted contention.

Without waiving this objection, but rather expressly relying upon the same, Licensee wili produce all responsive documents presently known to be ,

withia its possession or control.

Argument:

See the arguments set forth in Sections II.A and III.D. l i

Request j

45. Please produce for inspe, tion and copying all documentation of quality assurance audits of the storage methods during the construction period, as identified in response to Vermont Interrogatory (Set No.1) No. 40. If in response to Vermont Interrogatory (Set No.1) No. 40 Vermont Yankee has not identified any or all documents requested to be identified by that interrogatory, produce for inspection and copying all such documents.

! Response:

Licensee objects to this request on the grounds that subject thereof is not within the scope of the admitted contention. '

l l Argument:

l l See the argument set forth in Section Ill.D.

l l 30 a

Request

46. Please produce for inspection and copying all documents containing information regarding the environmental conditions which structures, systems and components of the Vermont Yankee plant experienced during the period between the construction period date and the operating license date. Include all available information on pressure temperature histories for storage locations and for as installed in plant environmental conditions before operation.

Response

Licensee objects to this request on the grounds that the subject thereof is not within the scope of the admitted contention.

1 Argument:

See the argument set forth in Section III.D.

Request 4

47. Please provide copies of all Quality Assurance Department Trend Reports identified in BVY 89-86.

Response

Licensee objects to this request on the grounds that it is overbroad.

l Withobt waiving this object, but rather expressly relying upon the same, Licensee will produce the relevant portions of the requested documents.

i Argument:

l See the arguments set forth in Sections II.C and III.B.  ;

1' l - Request ,

48. Please provide a copy of Vermont Yankee's " complete, independent reassessment of the subject (INPO list of 125 Significant Operating Event j 1

l l 31

Reports] SOER's as well as the governing review process" (quoted from BVY 89 86).

Response

Licensee objects to this request on the grounds that it is overb' road.

Without waiving this objection, but rather expressly relying upon the same, Licensee will produce the relevant portions of the requested i documents. ,

Argument: I See the arguments set forth in Sections II.C and III.B. Review of a portion i

of the SOER responses has shown that Vermont needs the original INPO SOERs - I which are being denied. Licensee must be compelled to proviae the INPO SOERs-because protecting this data grants an unfair advantage in the hearing to the licensee, who has access to greater data than Vermont, Vermont is willing to enter into a protective agreement not to release such data to others outside this hearing.

Request

49. For the activity of reconstituting the design basis, as described by Mr.

Donald Reid at the meeting with NRC Region I in King of Prussia, PA, on January 26, 1989:

a. Please produce for inspection and copying the procedure by which the i design basis reconstitution activity is controlled.

b. Please produce for inspection and copying all documents containing or describing the work product from the design basis reconstitution activity.

Response

Each of the procedures identified in the response to ; :rrogatory No.

42 will be produced.

32

4

. Argument:

The licensee fails to address part b of the request. The licensee should be compelled to identify and produce for inspection and copying all documents containing or describing the work product from the design basis reconstitution activity.

Request

51. Please produce for inspection and copying all documents relate'd 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, internal memoranda; all documentation related to resolution of.

inspection findings; and the SSF1 reports.

Response

All responsive documents presently known by Licensee to be within its possession or control will be produced.

Argument:

See the argument set forth in Section II.B. The licensee must be compelled to produce draft cop,ies of the Westec Report and earlier revisions of Westec findings, reference in the final Westec Report, as well as Westec internal memoranda.

Request

52. Please produce for inspection and copying INPO reports identifying or containing reliability information of Vermont Yankee plant specific equipment, including those documents identifying the Vermont Yankee Uninterruptible Power Supply (UPS) as a reliability outlier.

33

<_ ~ . _ . _ __ _. ._ ___ ,

-, L p

Response: l The Component Failure Analysis Reports (CFARs) identified in the response to Interrogatory No. 45 will be produced provided that VY determines that it is authorized by INPO, the owner of the information in the database, to do so. .

Argument:

Licensee must be compelled to provide the INPO CFARs because protecting j i

this data grants an unfair advantage in the hearing to the licensee who has access to greater data than Vermont. Vermont is willing to enter into a protective agreement l not to release such data to others outside this hearing. i

?

Request  !

l

53. Please provide a copy of the Yankee Atomic Electric Company Operational Quality Assurance Manual (YOOAP 1-A) and a copy of the Vermont l Yankee Safety Classification Manual, referred to in Section 3.2.2.1 of i Attachment 2 of the application. '

c i

Response

Licensee objects to this request on the grounds that the subject thereof ]

is not within the scope of the admitted contention. l 1

Argument.  ;

1 This objection should be overruled. However, the licensee has provided this i information.

l Request

-i

54. Please produce for inspection and copying all procedures applicable to  !

requalifying components to a longer service life, as stated in Sections 3.2.2.2 and 3.4.3 of Attachment 2 of the application.

34

n _- -

.- s l

l A

Response

Licensee objects to this request on the grounds that the subject thereof is not within the scope of the admitted contention.

Argument:

See the argument set forth in Section III.C.

Request

55. Produce for inspection and copying each document identified in response to Vermont Interrogatory (Set No.1) No. 50, identifying the location of each vendor recommendation for each structure, system and component. If in response to Vermont Interrogatory (Set No.1) No. 50 Vermont Yankee has not identified any or all documents requested to be identified by that interrogatory, produce for inspection and copying all such documents.

Response

Plc . . Se response to Interrogatory No. 50, which stated that no docume ' - of the nature described exists. The Licensee will produce for insper r.opy of any vendor manual requested, and thereafter it will produce any documentation known to be in its possession and control evidencing the disposition of any " vendor recommendation" specifically -

identified by SOV.

Argument: ,

f See the argument set forth in Section III.C. The licensee should be .

l l compelled to provide the EQ Files referenced in response to Vermont Interrogatory No.49.

Request ,

56. Produce for inspection and copying all documents identified in response to Vermont Interrogatory (Set No.1) No. 52, sub-part c, which are part of the evaluation or justification for not precisely following vendor recommendations. If in response to Vermont Interrogatory (Set No.1) No.

35 1

4-52, sub;part c, Vermont Yankee has not identified any or all documents requested to be identified by that interrogatory, produce for inspection and copying all such documents.

Response

The Licensee will produce the documents requested in accordance with its response to Request No. 55, above, which captures any document described in this request.

Argument:

See the argument for the previous request.

Request 57, . Produce for inspection and copying all procedures, policy statement.s and memoranda providing direction or instructions regarding following vendor recommendations for maintenance or vendor recommendations for maintaining qualified life or design life.

Response

All responsive documents presently known by Licensee to be within its possession or control will be produced.

Argument: ,

See the argument set forth in Section II.B.

Request

59. Please produce for inspection and copying all documents as identified in response to Vermont Interrogatory (Set No.1) No. 57, explaining the method by which failure and root cause evaluations are performed and documenting these evaluations. If in response to Vermont Interrogatory (Set No.1) No. 57 Vermont Yankee has not identified any or all documents requested to be identified by that interrogatory, produce for insr ,ction and copying all such docurrents.

36 l

Response

With the exception of PIRs and NCRs, Licensee will produce the documents identified in the response to interrogatory No. 57; with respect to PRIs and NCRs, Licensee will produce those PIRs and NCRs described in the response to Document Request 17, above. Licensee objects to the production of any other PRIs and NCRs on the ground that such documents are not relevant to the admitted contention.

Argument:

See the arguments set forth in Sections II.A and II.C.

Request

63. Please produce for inspection and copying all documents as identified in response to Vermont Interrogatory (Set No.1) No. 62, explaining the method by which the safety consequences and implications of failure, inoperability or degradation of structures, systems and components are performed and documenting these evaluations. If in response to Vermont Interrogatory (Set No.1) No. 62 Vermont Yankee has not identified any or all documents requested to be identified by that interrogatory, produce for inspection and copying all such documents.

Response

The Licensee will produce the procedures identified in the response to Interrogatory No. 62. Neither did the question there call for nor did the response id'entify specific documents in which specific analyses are documented, but rather only the types of documents in which such analyses might be documented. If this request-is for the production of the entirety of these types of documents, Licensee objects to the request on the grounds-that it is grossly overbroad and unduly burdensome and that it is not relevant to the admitted contention, and the Licensee requests a protective order in respect of the same.

Argument:

See the argument set forth in Section III.B.

37

c ,-

r Request I

.64. Please produce for inspection and copying all documents describing trammg  !

modules, courses, or training segments which train personnel to perform th< -

evaluation of safety consequences and implications of failures, inoperabilities and degradations of structures, systems and components.

Response: )

-l Licensee incorporates herein its answer to SOV's Interrogatory No. 63.

Licensee will produce the relevant portions of its training program.  !

Argument: :j See the argument set forth in Section II.C.

Request

65. Please produce for inspection and copying all instructions, policy guidances, and memoranda which have been operative since January 1; 1988, to provide guidance or instructions to personnel performing the evaluation of safety consequences and implications of failures, inoperabilities and degradations of structures, systems and components.

Response

All responsive documents presently known by Licensee to be within its possession or control will be produced.

Argument:

See the argument set forth in Section II.B.

Request

66. For 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 j Attachment 2 of the application, please produce for inspection and copying all documentation describing the method by which the determination of obsolescence was made.

38

r p '

p

,e .

\]

f

, Response:

Ucensee objects to this request on the grounds that the subject thereof is not within the scope of the admitted contention.

s I Argument:

See the argument set forth in Section II.A.

l

'; . Request -

j

68. Please provide copies of all trend analyses for safety-related electrical j equipment not covered by the Equipment Qualification Program, referred to j in Section 3.4.3 of Attachment 2 of the application. '!

Response

All responsive documents presently known by Licensee to be within its possession or control will be produced.

Argument:

-l See the argument set forth in Section II.B.

Request j

69. Please produce for inspection and copying the strict construction procedures referred to in Section 3.4.4.1 of Attachment 2 of the application. 1 Response: 1 Licensee objects to this request on the grounds that the subject thereof is not within the scope of the admitted contention.

Argument:

See the arguments set forth in Sections II.A and III.D.

39

i 9

.=

e 1

Request

70. Please produce for inspection and copying all documents describing the good ,

i. 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

Licensee incorporates herein its answer to SOV's Interrogatory No. 71.

Argument:

See the argument set forth in Section II.A. Licensee's response is not responsive in failing to identify the documents which describe the practices referenced -

by the licensee. Vermont needs this information to understand the licensee's preventative and predictive maintenance program. If licensee cannot back up the l

references in Attachment 2 of the application, it should so state. Otherwise, the i

licensee should be compelled to identify and produce the documents for inspecticn and copying.

L L Request

75. Please produce for inspection and copying all documents describing the design of the strainers fer the core spray, RHR, HPCI and RCIC pump suctions.

Response

Licensee objects to this request on the grounds that the subject thereof is not within the scope of the admitted contention.

Without waiving this objection, but rather expressly relying upon the .

same, Licensee will produce all responsive documents presently known to be within its possession or control.

40

A:

m 8

_4 ; .g

-t l

Argument:

The objection should be overruled in accordance with the argument set forth in Section II.A.

Request

76. Please produce for inspection and copying all procurement specifications for the core spray, RHR, HPCI and RCIC pumps.

Response

Licensee objects to this request on the grounds that the subject thereof is not within the scope of the admitted contention.

Without waiving this object, but rather expressly relying upon the same, Licensee will produce ali responsive documents presently known to be within its possession or control.

Argument:

j. The objection should be overruled in accordance with the argument set forth in Section II.A.

Request

77. Please pro 5uce for inspection ar.d copying all documcm> widib dam:Ah! the

- minimum net positive s Mion head for the core spray, RHR, HPCI and RCIC pumps.

Response

Licensee objects to this request on the grounds that the subject thereof is not within the scope of the admitted contention.

Without waiving this objection, but rather expressly relying upon the same, Licensee will produce all responsive documents presently known to be within its possession or control.

41

.m.m_._._-... .. . . . _ _ . . _ , . _ . _ _ _ _ . _ . _ _ _ .

Argument:

The.obbction should be overruled in accordance with the argument set forth in Section II.A. i 4

\

4 Request

78. For any minimum net positive suction head acceptance tests which were required or performed for the core spray, RHR, IIPCI and RCIC pumps, '

please produce for inspection and copying the following:

a. All test reports <

b. All test specifications and procedures by which tests were performed

c. All licensee and licensee's agent documentation demonstrating approval  ;

of the test specification or test procedure.

Response

Licensee objects to this request on the grounds that the subject thereof is not within the scope of the admitted contention.

Without waiving this objection, but rather expressly relying upon the same, Licensee will produce all responsive documents presently known to be within its possession or control.

Argument: ,

The objection should be overruled in accordance with the argument set forth in. Section ll.A.

Request

79. Please produce for inspection and copying all documents which establish the quality assurance or quality control inspection requirements for the tests identified in the preceding document production request.

42

i

. Response:

Licensee objects to this request on the grounds that the subject thereof is not within the scope of the admitted contention.

Without waiving this objection, but rather expressly relying upon the same, Licensee will produce all responsive documents presently known to be within its possession or control.

Argument:

The objection should be overruled in accordance with the argument set forth in Section II.A.

Request

80. Please produce for inspection and copying all quality assurance or quality control inspection reports and documentation, and all reviews of test results for the tests identified in document production request 78.

Response

Licensec objects to this request on the grounds that the subject thereof is not within the scope of the admitted contention.

Without waiving this objection, but rather expressly relying upon the same, Licensee will produce all responsive documents presently known to be within its possession or control.

Argument:

The objection should be overruled in accordance with the argument set forth in Section II.A.

Request

81. Please produce for inspection and copying all calculations which identify the available net positive suction head for the core spray, RHR, HPCI and RCIC pumps.

43

Response

Ucensee objects to this request on the grounds that the subject thereof is not within the scope of the admitted contention.

Without waiving this objection, but rather expressly relying upon the same, Ucensee will produce all responsive documents presently known to be within its possession or control.

Argument:

The objection should be overruled in accordance with the argument set forth in Section II.A.

Request

82. Please provide for inspection and copying all documents which identify the size of the largest particle or debris which the core spray, RHR, HPCI and RCIC pumps, respectively, can pass.

Response

Ucensee objects to this request on the grounds that the subject thereof is not within the scope of the admitted contention.

Without waiving this objection, but rather expressly relying upon the-same, Ucensee will produce all responsive documents presently known to be within its pt>ssession or control.

Argument:

The objection should be overruled in accordance with the argument set forth in Section II.A.

Request

85. Please produce for inspection and copying all documentation of the review of maintenance requests which is identified on page 2 of 5 of LER 86-04, 44

.~ .a. .

...m n.A l

Response

All responsive documents presently known by Licensee to be within its possession or control will be produced.

Argument:

See the argument set forth in Section II.B.

Request '-

86. Please produce for inspection and copying all documentation of the departmental review of surveillance procedures which is identified on page 5 ~

of 5 of LER 86-04.

Response

All responsive documents presently known by Licensee to be within its possession or control will be produced.

Argument:

See the argument set forth in Section II.B.

Request

87. Please produce for inspection and copying the procedure and documentation of the " closer look lat) drawings and procedures" identified on page 5 of 5 -

of LER 86-M.

Response

All responsive documents presently known by Licensee to be within its possession or control will be produced.

' Argument:

See the argument set forth in Section II.B.

45 1

- . . . . .~, -

res.NWK0

E

. Request

88. . Please produce for inspection and copying all documents describing the Vermont Yankee 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

Licensee incorporates herein its answer to SOVs Interrogatory No.105.

The documents identified in that answer will be produced.

Argument:

The licensee should be compelled to produce for inspection and copying information from the NPRDS data base which is granted by this response, but which was refused Ve'rmont.

Request

90. Please produce for inspection and copying the Vermont Yankee program policy directive and implementing procedures for qualifying safety system equipment other than those equipment covered by 10 CFR 50.49.

Response

All responsi/e documents presently known by Licensee to be within its possession or control will be produced.

Argument:

See the argument set forth in Section II.B.

46

+

Request

94. Please produce for inspection and copying all documents upon which you rely for claiming that there is reasonable assurance (within the meaning of 10 CFR 50.57(a)(3)), if you so claim, that the comprehensive and formal maintenance program 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 requirements, at present, and for the extended period.

1

Response

Not applicable--see Licensee's answer to SOV's Interrogatory No.113,

\

Argument:

The licensee's response is intentionally elusive, The response to Interrogatory 113 refers to " independent assessments performed by others including the NRC, INPO, YNSD, QA audits /surviellances." To be responsive, the licensee must identify each and every document which pertains to these assessments, and provide them for inspection and copying. The Board should compel a proper response from the licensee.

Request 105. Please produce for inspection and copying all documents presented to the NRC Maintenance Team to demonstrate the adequacy of Vermont Yankee Plant operability, equipment availability and plant material condition (as described in "overall plant performance" in NRC Temporary Instruction (TI) 2515/97 dated 11/03/88).

Response

All responsive documents presently known by Licensce to be within its possession or control will be produced.

47

1 L

i ,

. Argument:

See the argument set forth in Section II.B.

Request 106. Please produce for inspection and copying all documents which provide information to show that paint failure in the drywell and torus will not fail l in sheets rather than chips when exposed to radiation, temperatures, steam, and chemical conditions postulated for design basis accidents, q i

. Response: j i

l Without waiving this objection, but rather expressly relying upon the i same, Licensee will produce all responsive documents presently known to be 1 within its possession or control. l i

i Argument:

1 I

See the argument set forth in Section II.B.

Request i

107. Please produce for inspection and copying all documents which demonstrate  ;

that coating / paints will not experience sheet-mode failures similar to coating failures identified in NRC Information Notice 85-24 and INPO SER 68 83. j

Response

Without waiving this objection, but rather expressly relying upon the same, Licensee will produce all responsive documents presently known to be-  :

within its possession or control.

Argument:

See the argument set forth in Section II.B.

i 48

... i

. .q .

l-  ;

Request 108. Please produce for inspection and copying all documents which Vermont l Yankee has reviewed or otherwise has relied on regarding coating and paint ,

failures identified in NRC Information Notice 85-24 and INPO SER 68-83. l

Response

Lidensee objects to this request on the grounds that the. subject thereof is not within the scope of the admitted contention.

Without waiving this objection, but rather expressly relying upon the -i same, Licensee will produce all responsive documents presently known to be within its possession or control.

Argument:

i See the argument set forth in Section II.B.

Request 109. Please produce for inspection and copying all files documenting review of the industry safety issues identified in Section 2.3.6 of IR 89-80.

1

Response

Licensee objects to this request on the ground that it appears to be beyond the scope of the admitted contention.

Without waiving the foregoing objection, but rather expressly relying upon the same, Licensee is unable to find a reference to any " review of the industry safety issues" contained within Section 2.3.6 of IR 89-80.

i Argument:

See the arguments set forth in Section II.A. It is clear from the reading of Section IR 89-80 that the " review of industry safety issues" refers to the review of 49

h r:

f '

"[r]egulatory documents (which] are initially processed by the Licensing Engineer ...."-

The licensee should be compelled to identify and produce the requested documents.

Request  !

.I 110. Please identify, and produce for inspection and copying, all documents l presented to the NRC Maintenance Team to demonstrate the adequacy of '

the following aspects of " Maintenance Implementation," stated in NRC Temporary Instruction (TI) 2515/97 dated 11/03/88, and which were not _;

described in IR 89 80 l l

a. . Work prioritization  !

b. Backlog controls

c. Maintenance ;$rocedures - l I

i Response: 1 Licensee objects to this request to the extent that it is duplicative of prior requests.

Without waiving this objection, but rather expressly relying upon the same, Licensee will produce all responsive documents known to be within its possession or control.

Argument: ,

See the argument set forth in Section II.B.

Request

? 111, Please identify, and produce for inspection and copying. all documents relied upon during. and all documents created as a result of, the investigation of the scratches on machined surfaces inside the "B" diesel generator engine, noted in paragraph 3.10 of IR 89 80.

Response

All responsive documents presently known by Licensee to be within its possession or control will be produced.

50

l 1

. Argument.

See the argument set forth in Section II.B.

Request a 112. Please identify, and produce for inspection and copying, all documents ,

presented to the NRC Maintenance Team to demonstrate that having no  :

Master Equipment List caused no confusion, as concluded in paragraph 3.10 of IR 89 80. .

r i Response:

All responsive documents presently known by Licensee to be within its possession or control will be produced.

-Argument: l See the argument set forth in Section II.B. - 4 Request 113. Please identify, and produce for inspection'and copying, all procedures which contain requirements for post maintenance testing.

l l

l l Response: ,

l All responsive documents presently known by Licensee to be within its possession or control will be produced.

. q Argument:

l See the argument set forth in Section II.B.

Request 114. Please identify, and produce for inspection and copying, all documents presented to the NRC Maintenance Team to demonstrate the adequacy of 51

4( .;

1 I

aspects of " Plant Maintenance Organization" and specifically the Corrective Action System (specified under deficiency Identification, Control and i Corrective Action System and Support Interfaces specified by TI 2515/97).

Response

Licensee objects to this request to the extent that it is duplicative of prior requests. ,

Without waiving this objection, but rather expressly relying upon the same, Licensee will produce all responsive documents known to be within its possession or comrol.

f Argument:

See the argument set forth in Section II.B. -'

?

Request 115. Please identify, and provide copies of, all documents relating to failure data and trending for the 24 components mentioned in Paragraph 3.2 of IR 89- F 80.

Response

Licensee objects to this request to the extent that it is duplicative of prior requests.

Without waiving this objection, but rather expressly relying upon the same, Licensee will produce all responsive documents known to be within its possession or control.

Argument:

i See the argument set forth in Section II.B.

Request 116. Please identify, and produce for inspection and copying, all documents which describe Vermont Yankee's methods for upgrading material to a higher i 52

.. 5 l.

(:

• F safety classification than originally specified in the purchase order, as noted in paragraph 3.3 of IR 89-80.

Response

Licensee objects to this request on the grounds that the subject thereof

• is not within the scope of the admitted contention.

Without waiving this objection, but rather expressly relying upon the same, Licensee will produce all responsive documents presently known to be within its possession or control.

Argument:

See the argument set forth in Section II.B.

Request 117. Please identify, and produce for inspection and copying, all documents, including but not limited to all written and verbal correspondence with ,

vendors, relating to the root cause analyses for Vermont Yankee's i containment leak rate problems described in LER 89 07.

Response

All responsive documents presently known by Licensee to be within its possession or control will be produced.

Argument:

See the argument set forth in Section II.B.

Request 118. Please identify, and produce for inspection and copying, all documents prepared by or for Vermont Yankee containing its comments regarding, or positions on, the proposed NRC Maintenance Rule (53 FR 47822).

53

Q.

?

1

Response

Licensee is not aware of any such documents.

Argument:

See the argument set forth in Section II.B. Our request is for all documents, even handwritten margin notes. We find it unbelievable that no Vermont r employee or contractor has reviewed the NRC Maintenance Rule. If this is so,-it will be a small matter to prove our case. However, we feel it more reasonable to compel a complete and seriously researched response.

Request 119. Please identify, and provide copics of, all documents which develop, contain or comment on Vermont Yankee's position on Draft Regulatory Guide DG-1001.

Response

Licensee is not aware of any such documents.

Argument:

See the argument set forth in Section II.B. See the argument set forth in Section II.B. Our request is for all documents, even handwritten margin notes. We find it unbelievable that no Vermont employee or contractor has reviewed Draft Regulatory Guide DG-1001. If this is so, it will be a small matter to prove our case.

However, we feel it more reasonable to compel a complete and seriously researched response.

54

y.

c .,  ;

Request ,

120. Please identify, and produce for inspection and copying, all maintenance requests, engineering change requests and all other documents approving and  :

allowing installation of the gasket material involved in the failure of the Reactor Core Isolation Cooling (RCIC) valve operator identified in LER 89- i 14.

Response

[

All responsive documents presently known by Licensee to be within its possession or control will be produced.

{

Argument: i See the argument set forth in Section II.B.

Request 121. Please identify, and produce for inspection and copying, all documents which provide vendor recommendations for gasket material and thickness of the gaskets involved in the failure of the Reactor Core Isolation Cooling (RCIC) valve operator identified in LER 89-14.

Response

All responsive documents presently known by Licensee to be within its possession or control will be produced.

Argument:

See the argument set forth in Section II.B.

Request 122. Please identify, and produce for inspection and copying, all quality assurance and quality control documents which document the inspection, verification, or approval of the gasket material and thickness of the gaskets involved in the failure of the Reactor Core Isolation Cooling (RCIC) valve operator identified in LER 89-14.

55

Response

All responsive documents presently known by Licensee to be within its possession or control ill be produced.

. Argument:

See the argument set forth in Section II.B.

By its attorney, J dw Kurt Janso Special Assistant Attorney General Department of Public Service 120 State Street Montpelier, Vermont 05602 (802) 828 2811 Dated: June 26,1990 56

Attachment A .

Documents from Request No. 17 Which Were Requested but not Produced NCR 90-05 Diesel Fuel Oil Analysis P.O. 35311 (CH)

NCR 90-02 Bolting-Material (ESD)-

NCR 90-01' Lack of Documentation-for Safety Related Service (1987 P.O.s')

NCR 89-37 NCR 89-31 NCR 89-22 NCR 89-11 Target Rock "O" Ring NCR 89-09 VA Target Rock Solenoid Valves A. Reed Switch Wires B. Terminal B NCR 89-08 FT-2 110 A,B,C & D Reactor Recirc.

Flow Controller's Signal Cable NCR 89-06 4 Tran Limit Switch Broken Gear Shaft Pin NCR 89-04 Weidmuller Terminal Blocks DR 4R 91061.6 and DK 4 R 91144.9 Voltage dividers EIP-E029-DD2 NCR 88-31 Core Spray 12A & 12B MVO-loose brake housing bolts.

NCR 88-27 Head Shaft Pump Service Pump REF #404 Byron Jackson Manual Bill of Material NCR 88-26 Rack 4D Vendor NCR's NCR 88-22 Incorrect Pilot Solenoid Valve Installed NCR 88-21 VENDOR NCR Rack #3 NCR 8S"17 Rack 4B Drag Test Failure NCR 88-03 Full Channels and Fasteners Received Without Receipt Inspection NCR 88-01 Improper Jumper in ADS NCR 87-13 CPS 2-1 thru 3 NCR 87-24 Core Spray Pump Motor NCR 87-18 Limitorque DC Motors IN 8708

3

g.

c 2 NCR 87-04 Hanico--Shelf Life h

4 s

O I J

e -

s.

3 r

q NCR 86-109 Limitorque Gaskets j NCR-86-96 H02 2 Solenoid Valve Rep Kits (I&C) j NCR 86-90 HPCI MOV V23-57, 58 and 17 j NCR 86-79 Jet Pump Bypassed i NCR 86-76 Supp __ 133N i

,, NCR 86-52 Mobil Oil C of C Unauth. sign. j NCR 86-46 RHR SW Pump Meter Cooling-Line 150 Valve -

NCR 86-07' NAMCO Cun Block Kits-NCP 84-45 Under Vessel Cable NCR 84-42 SW Parts i i

PIR 89-04 Discharge Structure Flooding .

I PIR 89-03 (J. Meyer) Accumulation of 011 -

i in Main Generator I PIR 88-05 Scram Due to Pressure Problems .

By Pass Opening Jack l l

PIR 85-01 TBCCW Pumps Inop. '!

b EDCR 89-401 Reorientation of HPCI 14 Valve [

EDCR 89-402- Seismic Instrumentation Upgrade  ;

EDCR 89-403 N/A  :

EDCR 89-404 Feed Water Check Valve Replacment EDCR 89-405 Annuciator System Mod. (CRDR9)

EDCR 89-406 MOV Control Wire Modification EDCR 89-407 UPS Replacment l

EDCR 88-401 HPCI Pump Impeller Replacement EDCR 88-402 MOV Control Circuit Rewire Modification  !

EDCR 88-403 Feedwater Heater Modification Repair l

l c -

3

\ i t

4 EDCR 87-401 CRP 9-8 Vital AC Indication and Supply Selector Switch EDCR 87-402 ECCS Pump Room ena Control Room i HVAC Elec. Mods.  :

EDCR 87-403 Reactor Water Level Instrumentation  :

System Upgrade  ;

EDCR 87-404 Torus Water Temperature Indicator EDCR 87-407 Standby Liquid control Boron-10 Enrichment EDCR 87-408 MOV Limit Switch Rewire "

EDCR 87-409 Modification of High Speed Valve Actuators EDCR 87-410 N/A EDCR 87-411 UPS for Plant Process Computer EDCR 87-412 Diesel Fire Pump Injection Path Modifications EDCR 87-413 LPRM Power Supply EDCR 86-401 Salem ATWS NRC Audit Drawing Changes (85-407)

EDCR 86-402 Diesel Generator Room Vent. Design Modification EDCR 86-404 PAS System Modification EDCR 86-406 Motor Operated Valve Modifications EDCR 86-407 CRP 9-2 Modifications (CRDR4)

EDCR 85-401 Recirculation /RHR Piping Replacement EDCR 85-403 Reactor Vessel Water Level Reference Leg Upgrade EDCR 85-404 Vital AC MG Set Protection Relays EDCR 85-405 Replacement of HPCI Pressure Switches PDCR 90-01 Rx Building Airlock Door Seal Mod. (MAB)

PDCR 90-02 RHR-SW-89A Hydro (GL)

PDCR 90-03 RHR Rear Exchange Sample Lines PDCR 90-04 CR Blade Rack Faburation & Installation (MAS)

PDCR 88-01 Reactor building Load Shed Relays PDCR 88-03 Recirc. Pump Motor Snubber Removal PDCR 88-05 Drywell Pressure Alarm PDCR 88-07 RHR Head Spray Pipe Removal o + c , a - - . - .

o L

5 PDCR 87-04 Valve Replacement (V10-26A/31A & V2-19/49)

PDCR 86-04 Target Rock Solenoid-Cable Reriacement PDCR 86-05 CRDR-1 Switch Relocation PDCR 86-07 CRDR-3 Scram Lights /DG VAR Meter HPCI Start PDCR 85-01 RCIC-22 Replacement (Weld Radiographs Stored in Vault)

PDCR 85-02 Reactor Water Clean-up Exchanger (DCN 1)

PDCR 85-03 RPS TDR Replacement PDCR 85-04 Nitrogen CAD System PDCR 85-06 Torus to Reactor Bldg. Vacuum Breakers PDCR 85-07 Reactor Vessell Pressure and level Recorders PDCR 85-08 Diesel Generator Air Damper Modifications PDCR 85-09 ADS Accumulator Leak Testing Improvements PAR 87-04 HVAC Equipment Room Block Walls Mod./ Mech.

PAR 85-11 Emergency Diesel Generator Closed Cooling Water PAR 85-04 Fuel Oil Heat Tracing

7 d(lb>  :

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA hC ,

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION before the i ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD TO Ja' 28 P2:12 l In the Matter of ) f[hdhN,$

VERMONT YANKEE NUCLEAR ) Docket No. 50-271-OLA44 ANCH l POW".R CORPORATION ) (Operating License

) Extension)

(Vermont Yankee Nuclear )

Power Station) ) ,

)

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on June 26, 1990, I made service of

" Motion to Compel Answers to Document Production Requests (Vermont Set No. 1)", in accordance with rules of the Commission by mailing a copy thereof by Federal Express overnight delivery to the following:

Administrative Judge Administrative Judge Robert M. Lazo, Chairman Jerry Harbour Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Atomic Safety and Licensing U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Board Washington, DC 20555 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 Administrative Judge Ann P. Hodgdon, Esq.

Frederick J. Shon Patricia A. Jehle, Esq.

Atomic Safety and Licensing Board office of the General Counsel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Washington, DC 20555 Commission Washington, DC 20555 R. K. Gad, III,'Esq. Anthony Z. Roisman, Esq.

Ropes & Gray Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld &

One International Place Toll Boston, MA 02110 Suite 600 {'

l 1401 New York Avenue, N.W.

Adjudicatory File Washington, D.C. 20005 l Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel U.S.N.R.C.

Washington, DC 20555 ex% ,---

Kurt Janson [/ '

Special AssiVtant Attorney General Dated: June 26, 1990 i

W% eP4bMt "P W48* *N** _2 L