ML20059A864

State of VT Answer in Opposition to Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp Fourth Motion to Compel & State of VT Application for Protective Order.* Board Should Deny Util Motion to Compel & Issue Protective Order.W/Certificate of Svc

ML20059A864
Person / Time
Site:	Vermont Yankee
Issue date:	08/17/1990
From:	Janson K VERMONT, STATE OF
To:	Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
References
CON-#390-10749 OLA-4, NUDOCS 9008240061
Download: ML20059A864 (12)

Text

- _ - _ _ _ _ - _ - - . _ - _ - _ - - _ _ - _ _ - _ - - _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ - - _ _ _ - - _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ._ . - - - -___

bg *4 3?749 I

~

LQL *.L I L D 05NRC.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA bef a the  % ALIo 20 P3 :55 ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD' QFf!CF DF SECREit,RY v0CKE TING & S[HVlC[

OHANCH In the Matter of )

)

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

) Extension) <

(Vermont Yankee Nuclear )

Power Station) )

{

STATE OF VERMONT l ANSWER IN OPPOSITION To i VERMONT YANKEE NUCLEAR POWER CORPORATION FOURTH MOTION TO COMPEL AND STATE OF VERMONT APPLICATION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER  !

Introduction i

)

On August 2, 1990, the Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corporation (" Vermont Yankee") served by first-class mail a

" Motion to Compel Answers to Interrogatories (VYNPC Set No.

4)" (hereinafter referred to as the " Motion to Compel").

i Pursuant to 10 C.F.R. SS 2.730(c) and 2.740(c), the State of Vermont (" Vermont") files this Answer in opposition to Vermont Yankee's Motion to Compel and this Application for.  ;

protective order. This Answer will demonstrate that the s Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (" Board") should reject

, i i

1 9008240061 900817 PDR 0 ADDCK 05000271 PDR

)5

, q

?, ,

Vermont Yankee's Motion to compel:and grant Vermont's application'for protective order contained herein.

This Answer is organized in the following manner: q i

Section I addresses the licensee's general motion for supplementation that appears in Vermont Yankee's Motion to- 1 Compel;Section II presents Vermont's position on the nine contested interrogatory responses. Vermont does not, in j this Answer, repeat in full the interrogatories and  !

l responses which Vermont Yankee is challenging, because Vermont Yankee's Motion to Compel already sets them out in full.

I I. Responses To General Arguments Contained In Vermont Yankee's Motion To Compel i

Within the Introduction of the licensee's motion to i compel answers, Vermont includes.the following motion: j .

" Vermont Yankee hereby moves that supplementation of

[ Vermont's] responses to Interrogatories 3, 4, 10(b), .

A1, 12, 15, 16, 19. 25 and 29 be required pursuant to i the schedule to be established by the board."

l This motion shotld be denied in its entirety as superfluous and unnecessary. In accordance with 10 C.F.R. S 2.740(e) , Vermont already bears the responsibility to y supplement responses with additional information acquired by ]

'it during later stages of its case preparation, and no motion regarding this supplementation is required. The 2

i

l

.o; '

1 b

licensee's motion is simply another attempt to control the direction and. content of Varmont's case preparation.

Interrogatories 3, 4, 10(b), 15, 16 and 25 Will be supplemented should additional case preparation be accomplished in those areas. Interrogatories 11, 12 and 19 are complete responses which do not require supplementation.

[

II. Specific-Interrogatories

(- ,

r Interrogatory No. 1 Vermont now recognizes that the licensee has taken a slightly "different tack" in this interrogatory than in Vermont Yankee Interrogatories (Set No. 1) No. 14, and (Set j No. 2) No. 6, which were referenced by Vermont in its response. In admitting the lack of differentiation of this subtlety amidst the plethora of interrogatories of slightly different shades, Vermont nevertheless holds to its objection that the request constitutes harassment, representa unduly-burdensome discovery, and thus is improper. The licensee has propounded no less than twenty-two interrogatories 1querying Vermont's position regarding '

the adequacy of the Vermont Yankee maintenance program, or parts thereof, in various ways. The broadest of these is 1

These'are Set No. 1-5, 6, 8; Set No. 2 - 22, 23, 24,-

44, 47, 48, 49, 50, 71, 123, 141, 142, 146, 147; Set No. 3-8, 9; u Set-No. 4 - 11, 12 and 13.

i;

P Y

E Vermont. Yankee 1 Interrogatory (Set No. 2) No. 44, repeated below:

• Q.44 'Does SOV. agree without qualification with '

.the following statement" "VYNPC has implemented a maintenance program adequate to ,

provide reasonable assurance that

? VYNPCican and will be operated L

without endangering the health and- [

safety of the public."

1 .

If your answer is anything other than an unqualified affirmative, then please:

a. State each and every qualification you3have with respect to the quoted assertion.

b.- State each and every fact on which your. qualification is based.

c. Describe all of the evidence in SOV's possession or of which SOV has knowledge that SOV contends ,'

establishes each such fact.

d. For each qualification, either provide the technical qualifications (education,

. employment history, licenses and

. certificates, experience, or other  ;

information which SOV contends establishes the qualifications of the person), of any person on whose expertise SOV relies for the qualification or state that SOV does not rely upon the expertise of any person ,

for the qualification.

If'SOV agrees with the substance of the foregoing assessment, then please:

e. State each and every reason why SOV believes that the situation 4

e described therein has come to exist.

f. State each and every reason why, assuming the rejection of this i contention, the Sov contends (if it .

does) that the same condition might not be expected to continue through the balance of the existing VYNPS q license term. 4

g. State each and every reason why, assuming the rejection of this contention, the SOV contends (if it does) that the same condition might I not be expected to continue through '

the balance of the extended VYNPS license term..

Vermont's objection should be sustained,-and thus the licensee's motion to compel a further response should be 1 l

denied.  !

1 j

Interrogatory No. 2 The licensee argues this interrogatory on the same basis as the foregoing-interrogatory. The motion to compel a further response should be denied for the same reasons that were stated for the foregoing _ interrogatory.  ;

.i o-Interrogatcry No.-13 In its argument the licensee attempts to contort maintenance program inadequacles which it asserts Vermont has identified (i.e., procedural informality, non- ,

i 5

.i

.- . I incorporation of industry. initiatives, and lack of a checklist for post maintenance testing) to become " changes it contends should be made." However, Vermont has not reached a point in its case development, and is not so -

obligated to reach such point, to determine changes it contends should be made. Vermont stands upon-its objection.

The licensee further argues that the intent and meaning of this interrogatory is to determine "whether they (changes 1

allegedly identified by Vermont) would resolve the 1

inadequacies which it has alleged." Vermont's reference to l Supplemental response to Vermont Yankee Interrogatory (Set No. 1) No. 6 makes a clear negative response to this. l l

For these reasons, the motion to compel should be denied. i 1

Interrogatory No. 14 Vermont has made a complete and truthful response to the interrogatory. The licensee wishes to have the Board and Staff believe that Vermont is somehow less than diligent in

~its discovery practice related to a document it calls the Engineering Design Basis Manual (EDBM). The licensee gives the impression.that Vermont has failed to open the EDBM, look into an index for " containment design basis," turn to I the relevant pages, and transcribe these pages into the  !

interrogatory response. This impression is far from correct.

6 l

L i

. . h -

~'

s I

The licensee knows that the EDBM is in reality the l mar 1 backup.for a computer. data base. The licensee.indeed j l

can request information easily by key word access, but not  ;

i Vermont. Rather, the EDBM consists of a complicated system of ten-digit identifiers which refer to microfiche pages.

Different portions of the ten-digit identifier refer to system, design criteria, equipment and sequence number. The EDBM is extremely cumbersome (if not impossible) to use manually without the computer program assistance. Thus, the licensee knows that vermont's response is entirely reasonable. As such, the motion to compel should be denied.

Interrogatory No. 27 The licensee argues that "[ Vermont) has thus far resisted all attempts to force it to divulge its contention on how such a subjective standard is implemented." By " subjective standard" Vermont assumes the licensee means 10 C.F.R. S

50. 57 (a) (3) .

In its " argument" with respect to this interrogatory the licensee offers absolutely no reasons why Vermont's response ,

is inadequate; in fact, the licensee fails even to assert that Vermont's response is inadequate. For these reasons alone the motion'to compel must be denied.

The motion to compel must also be denied because Vermont's response is in fact more than adequate. The 7

-o I

licensee offers no argument indicating it'has read Vermont's supplemental response to Vermont Yankee Interrogatory (Set.

No. 1) No. 2, which is referenced in response to Interrogatory No. 27, and which states how Vermont believes the reasonable assurance standard should be implemented, j i

Since the interrogatory has been answered, the motion to compel must be denied.

Interrogatory No. 28 t The licensee argues that it has now asked information which an earlier Board ruling2 had denied was part of >

Vermont Yankee Interrogatory (Set No. 1) No. 7. However, -

the licensee has apparently not followed that Vermont voluntarily supplemented Interrogatory No. 7 with the very information it now seeks.3 The licensee asks in Interrogatory 28:

"Does-(Vermont] agree that the proceduralization ...

would ... suppress the application of initiative...?"

c Vermont has responded in supplemental response to Interrogatory No. 7:

Memorandum and Order (Motion to Compel Answers to Interrogatories, Set No.1) at 14 (May 24, 1990).

i supplemental Responses to Applicant's Interrogatories by State of Vermont (Set'No. 1), dated May.29, 1990.

8 '

m

r" It I- 1 3(

,' ? L

}

f' .

R j

"A balanced combination of written guidance,  !

L craftspersons skills and work site supervision help 1 achieve adequate maintenance." I

,l The licensee asked for " facts" and'" evidence". Vermont l has referred to one regulation, two INPO standards and an-h EPRI standard in supplemental response to Interrogatory No. l

\ \

g 7. The licensee asks for " expertise". Vermont has stated t d l

its reliance on the expertise of Mr. H. Shannon Phillips in i supplemental response to Interrogatory No. 7. 1 1

Since the requested information was provided previously i in response to the interrogatory referenced in Vermont's response, Vermont stands upon its objection. For this t

reason the motion to compel further response should be L

denied.

4 Interrogatory No. 30 The licensee once again attempts to turn the meaning of  :

Vermont's response by inserting its own wording. Vermont didinot state that "its assertions are at least partially based on a revlev of the documents by its' consultant" i s

(emphasis added). Vermont rather stated it "so contends-based on experience with these documents" (emphasis added).

Mr. Phillips' experience includes general usage of these t documents.at different times and on differe'nt projects throughout his career. This general usage has allowed Mr. i 9

-o v Phillips to contend that the documents: support the assertions made in the contention (Interrogatory-30(c)).

1 This experience does not include a " review" related to the aspects of Vermont Yankee's maintenance program. .

?

As such, licensee's argument is not_ correct and its -

-l motion tn compel further response should be denied.'

Interrogatory No. 31 The licensee's' motion to compel further response to part' "d" of'this interrogatory should be denied based on the same 1

reasons stated for the foregoing interrogatory.

Interrogatory No. 32 The licensee argues that Vermont's claim that "(o)ther facts have not been assessed and organized in the form and manner requested" is not an adequate reason. The meaning of this statement is that Vermont has not organized its " facts" into the categories of the sub-parts of Contention VII.5 As a practical matter, Vermont expects this argument to be moot based on an expected _ favorable. ruling on Vermont's Motion-to Compel Answers to' Document Production Requests (Vermont Set No.

2). Then this response will be, subject to supplementation in accordance with 10 C.F.R. 5 2.740(e) based on the schedule by which Vermont develops its case with these INPO documents.

5 See Vermont's objection to the licensee's attempt to

-force such organization and categorization into sub-parts of Contention VII in Responses to Interrogatories by State of Vermont to Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corporation (Set No. 5), dated 10

o 3: ,

{

2

.t .q However,_ Vermont is obligated to provide all facts it intends to use in the case, and is doing so in Response to R Vermont Yankee Interrogatories (Set No. 2) Nos. 44, 142 and ,

147, including supplementations. 6

'i Thus, licensee's motion to compel a further response should.be denied.

r i

conclusion ,

For the reasons set forth above, the Board should deny ,

Vermont Yankee's Motion to Compel and should issue a Protective' order that provides that Vermont need not ,l supplement any of its responses to Vermont Yankee's fourth set of interrogatories.

y its attorney,

~w Kurt anson i' Special Assistant Attorney General Department of Public Service 120 State Street Montpelier, VT 05602 (802) 828-2811 Dated: August 17, 1990 .

August 13, 1990. t 11 1

n y

I i.XrliED P ' UNITED STATES OF AMERICA U*E NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION before the ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BO%: N RE 20 P3 :55

) (f8fCEOfSLCilEIARY In the Matter of ) u0CK[l LNG A S[HVICI VERMONT YANKEE NUCLEAR ) -Docket No. 53^YY1-OLA-4 POWER CORPORATION ) (Operating License

) Extension)

(Vermont Yankee Nuclear )

Power Station) )  ;

) J l

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

• I hereby certify that on August 17, 1990, I made service of

" State of Vermont Answer in Opposition to Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corporation Fourth Motion to compel and State of Vermont Application for Protective Order", in accordance with rules of the Commission by mailing a copy thereof postage prepaid to the.

following:

Administrative Judge Administrative Judge Robert M. Lazo, Chairman Jerry R. Kline Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Atomic Safety and' Licensing U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Board Washington, DC 20555 U.S. Nuclear'Regulctory 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 7. Roisman, Esq.

Ropes & Gray

~

Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld &  !

One International Place Toll Boston, MA 02110 Suite 600 1401 New York Avenue, N.W.

Adjudicatory File Washington, D.C. 20005 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel 4 U.S.N.R.C.

l . Washington, DC 20555

? w r~ -

~

Kurt Jansch/

Special Assistant Dated: August 17, 1990

, pCO