ML20059N867
| ML20059N867 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Vermont Yankee  |
| Issue date: | 10/04/1990 |
| From: | Volz J VERMONT, STATE OF |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| CON-#490-10896 OLA-4, NUDOCS 9010190033 | |
| Download: ML20059N867 (121) | |
Text
{{#Wiki_filter:B yi O . c' @' p~ mm fc .' c-};.:h&.: y I N. g ' ~ q$
- L 000KETCO p[lr [.C[J .USHRC '
y , , [ e , 904 OCTf9.-, P 2 '41 - c ce s UNITED STATES.OF AMERICA' , [ ' NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMIS$ HUM..h.viti gy
~ before the MHW
[' .+ w ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD
, s i g.
- t i J'.
,, In the Matter of ) : 'I '
S ) , VERMONT YANKEE NUCLEAR ) Docket No. 50-271 OIA-4 ~',
,9 , ' POWER CORPORATION ) (Operating. License 1 ;
) Extension) y (Vermont Yankee Nuclear )
n, Power Station) ) 1 f MOTION TO COMPEL ANSWERS TO INTERROGATORIES i
^
, _(VERMONT SET NO. 3) 4 m
r
, s ~ Pursuant to 10 C.F.R. s 2.740(f), Vermont moves th'at the Atomic cifety and' Licensing Board (" Board") enter an order compelling the ;;
{ , +w m censee, Vermont Yankee ~ Nuclear Power Corporation (" Vermont - .
, e1 ug , '
. Yankee"), to give proper responses to and to' allow. discovery _of those of ;
p1 1 its " Answer of Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corporation to . 2 ,sw pg Interrogatcries Propounded by the State of Vermont (Set No. 3)" as are .I 4* P set forth herein. The interrogatories were served by mail on July 24, J o 1990; the responses were served by mail on. Septi .ber 14,1990. By j stipulation with Vermont. Yankee the time within which this motion was 1 c due was enlarged to' October 5,1990. ! p' y ' a* ,
\
W ' Interrogatory No. 4 ti
#' '.
- Does Vermont Yankee agree that, if the containment integrity has k not been maintained such that the containment leakage rate is less than !
- J.
< or equal to the allowable containment leakage rate in the current -
o' 9010190033 901004 I PDR ADOCK 05000271 p,9 _ Q PDR Q( 7 .{ F
.g
-'I g; .
603 E r ~^ k + ~ . . _ . - _ _ _ . _ - _ . . . _ - . - _ -
g y , ,
+ , , ,
L , r 'x, licensinglbasis, then containment integrity no longer meets the safety' g ,a : standards applicable to the Vermont Yankee plant. If your answer is anything other than an unqualified affirmative, m then please state every reason for your answer, and for such reason: i a. State each and every fact on which your reason is based.' ^
- b. Describe all of the evidence in Vermont: Yankee's possession or of which Vermont Yankee has_. knowledge -
,, that Vermont Yankee Contends esttblishes eachisuch fact.
- ' Objection
- .
i Vermont Yankee objects to this interrogatory on the-ground that it'is not relevant to the admitted contention. n
- Response:'
Without waiving the foregoing objection, but rather
- expressly relying upon the same, Vermont Yankee supplies the following information:
1 No. As stateu above, the Vermont Yankee Tech. Spec, J limit is designed to surpass' the 10 C.F.R., Part 100 requirements, j and exceedance of the limit would not result in 'a failure to meet >
, that requirement. .
Argument:
- As 'to the' objection, it should be overruled. Vermont-intends to - U demonstrate that the mair.tenance program has inadequately maintained the containment integrity such that it has not met the safety standards- a applicable to the plant. Further, Vermont intends to demonstrate' that the' licensee has not reasonable assurance that containment integrity will c be maintained otherwise in the future. The information requested by this interrogatory is necessary to acquire information and understand the licensee's case in this area and to make this demonstration. This is ;
consistent with this Board's statements,in its Memorandum and Order of . 4 May 24,- 1990, at 11:
'The State may, however, have to prove an impact on safety if its is to succeed in proving its contention;"
i 2 1
w .iw , o ' w . qf f'Yh:j u 'i3. fMMs L4 "' wt ' , i (,E d fa TY, .
.i k#
9 y" Ba * ' \ . <
, j h, A$ 3 [ .l 1
Ms:,%,9 h :Y ' . -pf : and in its Memorandum and Ordet of July 20,1990, at 30: -
]f ;
m ,4 y "[T]he adequacy of past performance may logically be ] C'< deemed a precursor. to future performance _under a j
- proposed program and, hence, the adequacy of the 1 s
proposed program." 1 o . ., .
.. 1 1 Thus, the requested information is indeed relevant 30 the admitted ,
fA^ m
- contention. .
4 L ap *fhis response is evasive and incomplete and the licensee should- i j';1 be compelled to provide a proper response. The interrogatoty' requests l w all the facts and evidence related to the licensee's belief containment !
- m. integrityLmeets th> afety standards applicable to the Vermont Yankee , <
~
plant even when the containment 1ntegrity is mainta...~d such that the ' - j g; . leakage rate greater than its current licensing basis. First,'it is l jf ? -Impossible to relate the licensee's response to the interrogatory. Is "4 , . xVermont to infer that the _" Vermont Yankee Tech. Spec. limit" is what
$ ,I , the licensee believes is the current licensing basis? <Is Vermont to: infer
,e,
%k ,
that the "10 C.F.R.' Part:100 requirements":is what the licensee believes
,' w < >
is the safety standard applicable to the Vermont Yankee plant? If this lis so, then the licensee must so state. Further, what .is meant tiy surpass"Iand "exceedance of the limit"? What if containment integrity is a maintained such that the containment leakage rate results in dcse rates, &m '.
; , L calculated according to the current licensing basis,;whichlwould exceed M[4
[ o. 10 C.F.R.', Part 100 limits? Then does licensee' agree that' containment M','. a, interity has been mainnined such that it no longer meets 'the' safety ~ 4 standards applicable to the plant? Licensee gives'no clue'to the. answers 9.: 3 e to these questio'ns, which are clearly encompassed by the interrogatory. WW Finally, licensee chooses not to frame its response in terms of facts and documents, a mode which licensee has required,'and
*y ' compelled, in itr own iterrogatories of Vermont. Licensee should be FM N - held to the same standards required ,of Vermont. Vermont cannot
. believe that licensee will not use as testimony more facts and evidence
[i1 c '
. . than these, and therefore moves to, con pel the revelation of these facts Fy m ; ";
3 L -.,
!! !- g 4
.,5
,\
,'?.h?~
' ' [t ' ' ,
I f 1 and evidence in the area of containment integrity. Otherwise, the Board must impose that only this short statement, and no more, may be used in this area in testimony. Interrogatory No. 5 Does Vermont Yankee agree that, if the containment integrity has not been maintained such that had a design basis loss-of coolant accident occurred with the single worst effect active failure and with radiological consequence (calculated in accordance with Standard Review Plan 15.6.5 with Appendices and Regulatory Guide 1.2) for such event calculated to be greater than the exposure limits of 10 CFR Part 100, then the containment integrity no longer meets the safety standards applicable to the Vermont Yankee plant? If you answer is any thing other than an unqualified affirmative, then please state every reason for your answer, and for each reason:
- a. State each and every fact on which your reason is based,
- b. Describe all of the evidence in Vermont Yankee's possession or of vhich Vermont Yankee has knowledge that Vermont Yankee contends establishes each such fact.
Objection: Vermont Yankee objects to this interrogatory on the ground that it is not relevant to the admitted contention.
Response
Without waiving the foregoing objection, but rather expressly relying upon the same, Vermont Yankee supplies the following information: As we read this interrogatory, it is in the form of a hypothetical question that supplies its own mandatory answer. It is in the form: do you agree that if X, then X (where X is that the i art 100 limits are exceeded). Such a question is meaningless, and we therefore suspect some inadequacy in its presentation. If the question was intended to ask whether exceedance of the 0.8% licensing basis limit would result in exceedance of the 4 1 i
m , l 'Q , s l jJ s ' ,i}. ?. i ' .,
,4 .
n , a "t i h Partl100 limits, then the answer is, as set forth above, no.. We = l add only that the design basis accident calculations for Vermont ! [i Yankee are not based on SRP 15.6.6 but on FSAR Chapter 14. , F, Finally, we point out that the calculational methodology of l Chapter 14 takes no credit for such real world phenomena as , z , containment pressure decrease, condensation, suspended matter ;
- deposition, and the like, and thus necessarily overstates the resulting site boundary implications. l
$p '
Argument: 'f The objection should be overruled for the reasons stated in the ; c, , : previous argument. j Like the previous response, this response is evasive 1and incomplete. The licensee should be compelled to provide a proper , response. Ilere licensee claims an inability to understand the language '!
!I of the question, and then proceeds to frame an answer to a question i i which was not asked. The interrogatory, though complex, is able to be .
understood. If Vermont can demonstrate that containment integrity has- ,
. ~ been maintained such that' the resulting dose rate, calculated in ;
- accordance with current licensing basis assumptions is greater than 10- ,
- y. ,
- C.F.R. Part 100 limits, then does licensee agree that' containment. 3 y
integrity no longer meets the safety standards of the plant? This is i j J ,. . g4 ' important because Vermont intends to make jtist this demonstration.
The phrase,L"no longer meets the safety standards of the plant" are l literal terms from Contention Vll. The conditions of the interrogatory, p ..
c " single worst effect actise failure" and radiological consequence j (calculated in accordance with Standard Review Plan 15.6.5.with l 6 Appendices and Regulatory Guide 1.2)," are components of what !
, Vermont believes to be the current licensing basis, but the licensee can. 1
+ '
identify facts and evidence to the contrary if it believes these are not the i current licensing basis for the method of making this calculation. Vermont niust know the licensee's case material regarding this whole - 1 premise. The licensee must not be allowed to gesticulate with "if X, 3 then X (where X ...)," but rather must be compelled to simply state, "Yes," if that is the answer. ; 1 P I 5 ; p I h is,
- 3:
/,: - t
.[
y',< / x
" gx ;
ff $ h ' , ,
]
f< ;;
; Like the previous response, licensee evades identifying facts and l
. evidence, and the comments regarding facts and evidence from the foregoing argument' apply here also. Either the licew.,ee must reveal all L/ the facts and evidence that related to the reasons involved in response .
to this interrogatory, or the Board must impose that.only the statement.
- g. l
'l W in this response, and no more, may be used in' this area in testimony, :!
r [v ,
. interrogatory No. 6 j i
f' Does Vermont Yankee agree that, based on the results of LERs' 89-07,87-07. 85 07 and 8411, the Vermont Yankee plant was operated
]
h , i
. while' technical specifications 3.7.A 3, 3.7.A.4, and 3.7.A.8 were not met? l u i
,i If your answer is anything other than an uncualified affirmative, [ (1 ' ' , then please state every reason for your answer, anc for each reason: j
. a. State cach and every fact.on ,which your reason is based. ]
L b. Describe all of the evidence in Vermont Yankee's . ! possession. or of which Vermont Yankee has knowledge . ,
,i ~
y that Vermont, Yankee contends establishes each such fact. Objection: ; 1 1 ~
-Vermont Yankee objects to the interrogatory on the - j grounds that it (i) is not a proper interrogatory, (ii) seeks a bare )
i legal opinion, and (iii) is not relevant to the admitted contention.- s Response: j Without waiving the foregoing objections, but rather d expressly relying upon the same, Vermont Yankee states that the - d } ; referenced documents speak for themselves. However, Vermont , j F ' Yankee further provides the following information:- l C Hi . No. The terms of Technical Specification sections 3.7.A.3, y 3.7.A.4, 3.7 A.8 and 4.7.A are not such that operation of the plant si
^
was a violation whenever it might be inferred from subsequently ] observed tests that the leak rates were higher than the Tech. L* Spec, dictated "as left" limits. j t o , 6 .
l i e i I-
; i. l
~
To the contrary, the fact that the leak-tight integrity or i primary containment isolation valves may degrade between tests is anticipated by both the VYNPS Tech.- Specs and 10 C.F.R., Part i 50, Appendix J. Note in particular the following two excerpts ! from the llases" section of Tech. Spec. section 4.7.A: ,
"The maximum allowable test leak rate at the peak accident pressure of 44 psig (La) is 0.80 weight % per day. !
The maximum allowab!c test leak rate at the retest : pressure of 24 Psig(Lt) has been conservatively determined
, to be 0.59 weight % per day."
a "To allow a margin for possible leakage deterioration , between test intervals, the maximum allowable operation leak rate (Ltm), which will be met to remain on the normal test schedule, is 0.75 Lt."- ~ Similar y, Appendix J recognizes that failures of leak rate tests will from time to time occur, as demonstrated by the ; statement in the " Introduction" that one of the purposes of the tests is to assure that " periodic surveillance of reactor containment penetrations and isolation valves is performed so that proper maintenance and repairs are made during the service life of the
. containment and systems and components penetrating primary
. containment."
In addition, the acceptance criteria of sections 3.7.A.3 and 3,7.A.4 must be read in conjunction with the other provisions, l including 4.7.A.2. Finally, it must be recalled that .many of the - valves to which these sections are applicable are not capable of "; being tested during plan operations. Therefore, it is not an acceptable interpretation of the Technical Specifications as an integrated document that a violation of the compensatory action < statement occurs whenever subsequently determined conditions might imply. that a test, could it have been performed at 'an ! earlier non required time,'would have resulted in values above the -
"as left" limits. :
- a. & b. See above.
Argument: The objections should be overruled for the following reasons. ; The objections are simple statements, with no support whatsoever. No-7 i v ,-
py. ~ ,
' '~
< i i y A
+ . 4 l
7 , Q ' 4
.j i" , i L' {
; 9- clue is provided for 1)'why the licensee believes this is not 'a proper M 3 interrogatory,2) why the licensee believes a' bare legal opinion is sought, l
[ , and 3) why the licensee believes the interrogatory i not relevant, j n lincking arguments they must be overruled. Contrary to licensee's j statements,'no bare legal opinion is sought. . Rather a strict technical '!
- answer is sought. If the as found leakage rates are greater than;
~
j
' allowable (as evidenced in the LERs), then were the technical !
+ specifications on allowable leakage violated? ~'This is both a proper
. contention, and relevant, since it is part of the case Vermont will be -
B : required to present -- maintenance inadequacies affecting the safety 0g standards for the plant. I 'i The licensee's response, relying upon its objections, is evasive in that it avoids answering the question asked.
- LER 89 07 ' and LER 8707 both contain the words (at 1): ,
"[A list of valves) were found to have seat leakage above 4 ,
that permitted by Technical Specifications 3.7.A.4."' l! a f .a[
, ', LER'85 07 and LER 8411 both contain the words (at 1):
L. ."[A list of valves] were found,to have seat-leakage above ' i '.
~
that permitted by Tech. Spec. Section 3.7.A.4. .This p4 . resulted in [a condition] which does not meet the requirements of Tech. Spec. Section 3.7.A.3." Thus, technical specifications 3.7.A.3 and 3.7.A.4 were not met. 4 Technical specification 3.7.A.8 states: I. i "8. If Specification-3.7.A.1 through 3.7.A.7 cannot be met,'an
=
orderly shutdown shall be initiated immediately and the- .
. reactor shall be in a cold shutdown condition within 24 hours."
1 If technical specifications 3.7.A.3 and 3.7.A.4 are not met, the plant must be shutdown within 24 hours. 8 g= 4 1
It seems clear from the licensee's own documents that the answer to this interrogatory is simply "yes." The "as found" condition exceeded the requirements of technical specifications 3.7.A.3 and 3.7.A.4. Our question inquires whether the plant "was operated" in this condition. Were the "as found" conditions representative of the conditions just before shutdown? If so, Vermont believes technical specification 3.7.A.8 was not met. Licensee's response seems superfluous. Vermont is neither asking about "as left" conditions, nor about aspects of Appendix J leakage testing. Instead, Vermont is asking about the conditions of valve leakage and containment integrity during operations, and whether the quoted technical specifications were met. The licensee should be compelled to respond to the question that was asked. Interrogatory No. 7 How long does Vermont Yankee believe the Vermont Yankee plant was operated while technical specifications 3.7.A.3,3.7.A.4, and 3.7.A.8 were not met? Please state every reason for your answer, and for each reason:
- a. State each and every fact on which your reasons is based.
- b. Describe all of the evidence in Vermont Yankee's possession or of which Vermont Yankee has knowledge that Vermont Yankee contends establishes each such fact.
9
cif-
, q m ,
.wx
[. l if w~, ,
;:n
;p
.. v . -
i j!i Lf' . b; . 'i
,s n i r ,
. Objection:.
)
D Vermont Yankee objects to the interrogatory on the
, l
',' grounds that it (i) is not a proper 6terrogatory, (ii) seeks a bare l
, legal opinion, and (iii) is not relevant to.the admitted contention. l w ,
.I j Response: ,
[ N Without waiving the foregoing objections, but rather
]
i k
~
expressly relying upon the same, Vermont Yankee provides the !
, following information. ;
(- ..\-
. l Zero s.'me. Please see the response to Interrogatory No. 6. j h: i Argument: . O s Licensee's objection should be overruled and should be compellt- .J to provide a proper response based on the same argu'ments as those for j p" the foregoing interrogatory, n ,
1 J g Interronatory No. 8 r f If it cannot be determined how long'the Vermont-Yankee plant was operated while technical specifications 3,7.A.3,3.7.A 4?and 3.7.A.8 .i L' , were not met,- does Vermont Yankee agree with the conservative i
?
- n. .
. assumption <(for the purpose of consequence evaluation).that the plant -
o operated the entire operating cycle in such condition? ! If your answer is anything other than an unqualified affirmative, - l"x, - then please state ever reason for your answer, and for each reason:- : a . State each and every fact on which your reason is based.. [
- b. Describe all of the evidence in Vermont .mkee's I possession or of which Vermont Yankee , Sknowledge l that Vermont . Yankee contends establishe. aach such fact, f i
10 l t
.<=
+
g < by , 4
-l A s i 1
.a l
7 c. i E
- State the conservation assumption (for consequence :
g evaluation) and its basis with which Vermont Yankee does 1 agrCe. ' 3
~
Response
g
' No response required by the terms of the interrogatory.
Arguments . ' y . The lleensee should be compelled to provide a proper response p , { l: . based on the same arguments as those for Interrogatory No. 6. -
)
y.. Interronatory No. 11 LER 89 07 at page"4'of 5 states, y 3 1
"There is reasonable assuranen that, with the exception of a
- feedwater line break u ,
' would have been gh enou(in time for thethe same motor line as operated FDW.96A) nth valves at the discharge of the high pressure feedwater i
' heaters to be closed before there was any escape of , !!
contain.nent atmosphere." (emphasis added) ; Please s' tate each and every' reason.why Vermont Yankee believes there is " reasonable assurance" that "there would have Tbeen time (, r t for the motor operated valves at the discharge of the high pres .c ,- feedwater heaters to be closed before there was any escape of 1 a
' containment atmosphere" and for each reason:
- a. State'each and every fact on which your reason is based.:
' b.
Describe all of the evidence in Vermont Yankee's . i possession or of which Vermont Yankee has knowledge !
' that Vermont Yankee contends establishes each such fact. 4 c.
For each reason, either provide the technical qualifications-(education, employment history, licenses and certificates, experience, or other information that Vermont Yankee ' J, contends establishes the qualification of the person), of any ' person on whose expertise Vermont Yankee relics for the reason or state that Vermont Yankee does not rely upon i the expertise of any person for the reason. ' l 11
'i
bt 1 i r , 4 ( Objectiom Vermont Yankee objects to this interrogatory on the ground that it is not relevant to the admitted contention.
Response
k Without waiving the foregoing objection, but rather expressly relying upon the same, Vermont Yankee offers the following information:
- a. The facts relied upon for this conclusion are: (1) the high
, reliability'of check valves; (2) the large inventory of-feedwater available within the system (approximately 130 feet of 10-inch pipe and 41 feet of 16 inch pipe between ,
the vessel and the outboard check valve; (3) the readily i accessible remote operating switches for the motor operated valves in the control room; and (4) the anticipated operator action. See the response to Interrogatory No. 9, above for additional information. e b. In ~ addition to the above discussion, Vermont Yankee relies p ,, on conclusions reached in a USNRC Safety Evaluation Report concerning this issue. (
Reference:
Letter, USNRC to VYNPC (NVY 83-192), dated 8/19/83) ~ '
- c. See the response to Interrogatory No. 9, above. The, qualification of these people have already been produced for SOV's inspection.
Argument: The objection should be overruled for the reasons stated for Interrogatory No. 4. The response to this interrogatory is incomplete and the Board q y should compel a proper response. Vermont intends to demonstrate, using current licensing basis assumptions, that there is nel reasonable assurance that there would have been enough time for feedwater heater valves to be closed, and further, that with current licensing basis assumptions, it is improper to rely upon these feedwater heater valves to prevent " escape of containment atmosphere". Vermont cannot believe 12 1
L , e a L that licensee will not use as testimony more facts and evidence than provided here. Is it a fact that the current licensing basis for feedwater line break accidents (to provide " reasonable assurance") allows use of the high pressure feedwater valves? What fact supports the value that is
*enough time"? - What fact establishes the closure times for the valves?
What fact establishes the current licensing basis for the time for operator action following a design basis accident such as a feedwater line break? None of these facts are provided, nor is the documents arid evidence which supports these facts. Vermont therefore moves to
- compel the revelation of these facts and evidence related to containment
~
leakage from inadequately maintained valve FDW 96A. - Otherwise, the Board must impose that only the facts and evidence presented here, and no more, may be used in this area in testimony. . Interrogatory No.13 is it Vermont Yankee's current licensing basis to assume "there would [be) enough time for the motor operated values at the discharge of the high pressure feedwater heaters to be closed before there was any escape of containment atmosphere?" If your answer is affirmative, please provide a specific reference to the " facility operating license (including Technical Specification,
. Applicable Commission Regulations, Certain NRC orders (those amounting to license amendments) [or] Certain licensee commitments" < -(quote from Vermont Yankee response to interrogatory _(Se: No. 2) No.
- 6),within your current licensing basis which allows this assu.nption. ;
Objection. , t Vermont Yankee objects to this interrogatory on the -l
- ground that it is not relevant to the admitted contention. !
Hesponse: , t WP.hout waiving its objntion, but rather expressly relying upon the same, Vermont Yankee offers the following information: , please see NRC SER NVY 83492(8/19/83), at 4 (item 2). 13 M,, - - _
F- ) f I i J V Argument: l The licensee's objection should be overruled since the requested i information is related to the demonstration that inadequate maintenance :
! results in equipment not being maintained or replaced to meet the safety function of the plant. This interrogatory is relevant since it is related to j the licensee's statements regarding inadequately maintained containment o
isolation valve FDW-96A. The response to this interrogatory is evasive and the Board should , compel a proper response. The licensee evades answering a simple yes-or no question, is it, or is it not, part of the current licensing basis for the plant to rely on the high pressure feedwater valves for mitigating the consequences of the feedwater line break accident (which is implied by the words "any escape from containment atmosphere - refer back to Interrogatories Nos.11 and 12)? Vermont believes the answer is clearly -
"N o." liowever, if the licensee does not agree, it should clearly state "Yes, the high pressure feedwater valves are part of the current licensing basis to mitigate the consequences of the feedwater line break." Any other response is intentionally evasive.
Interronatory No.14 , is it Vermont Yankee's current licensing basis DH1 to assume "a L feedwatwr line break (in the same line as FDW-96A)?" If your answer is anything other than an unqualified affirmative; p 1
- a. Please identify your calculation which provides the radiological consequence for this accident with the containment integrity in the "as found" condition described 1 in BVY 89-64 (for the 1989 Type A, B and C tests).
- b. If no calculation has been performed which provides the radiological consequence for this accident with the containment integrity in the "as found" condition described in BVY 89-64 (for the 1989 Type A, B and C tests), please state the radiological consequences of this accident using 14
w t' l h engineering judgement, consistent with the assumptions of Vermont Yankee's current licensing basis,
- c. For the engineering judgement requested in the foregoing sub-part, please provide the technical qualifications (education, employment history, licenses and certificates, experience, or other information that Vermont Yankee contends establishes the qualifications of the person) of any
- l. person on whose expertise Vermont Yankee relies for such judgement.
Objection: Vermont Yankee objects to this interrogatory on the ground that it is not relevant to the admitted contention. j Response: Without waiving the foregoing objection, but rather expressly relying upon the same, Vermont Yankee supplies the following informatiom The radiological consequences of a feedwater line break accident are bounded by the design basis steam line break and loss of coolant accidents described in chapter 14 of the FSAR. Argument: The objection should be overruled for the reasons stated in the x argument for Interrogatory No. 4. This response is evasive and incomplete and the licensee should. be compelled to provide a proper response. IIere the licensee has just
- not answer.d the question Verment has asked. LER-07, at 4, contains l the following statement (quoted in Interrogatories Nos.11 and 12):
"There is reasonable assurance that, with the exception of a
^
Feedwater.line break (in the same line as FDW 96A), there would have been enough time for motor-operated g" valves at the discharge of the high pressure feedwater heaters to be closed before there was any escape of containment. atmosphere." Part of the purpose of this interrogatory is to make it clear whether or not "the exception of a Feedwater line break (in the same line a FDW-u 15
c . 3 {: <
\
e l b i 96A)" is consistent with the current licensing basis, and therefore the
- safety standards applicable to this plant" (from Contention Vil). The f
Ilcensee should be compelled to answer clearly, "yes" or "no". Vermont : clearly believes the answer is "no", and that the statement from LER-07 . must be completely disregarded. : e
.The interrogatory further inquires that, if such an accident must 4 be assumed as part of the current licensing basis, what is the as found,
- predicted radiological release. The licensce's reference to' Chapter 14 of-- 7 the FSAR is not an answer because this analysis does not represent the l as found condition of containment integrity,11, that "FDW 96A Could . i Not Pressurize" (LER 07, at 2). Vermont Yankee should be compelled 'f i to state this predicted radiological release, either by calculation or by judgement.
'Inkttagatory No.15 l
BVY 89 64 at page 13 of 18 states, i
" Vermont; Yankee believes that there is reasonable .
assurance that this penetration [X-9B] will be water sealed after a design basis accident." -(emphasis added) .
- a. State each and every fact on which your reason is based. ,
- b. Describe all of the evidence in Vermont Yankee's possession or of which Vermont Yankee has knowledge that Vermont Yankee contends establishes each such fact. ,
L c. For each reason, either provide the technical qualifications ' ' (education, employment history, licenses and certificates,
' experience, or other information that Vermont Yankee contends establishes the qualifications of the person), of ,
any person on whose expertise Vermont Yankee relles for the reason or state that Vermont Yankee does not rely i
- upon the expertise of any person for the reason.
16 n. i . .. ,_ . .
p : 0 t' Objection: Vermont Yankee objects to this interrogatory on the ground that it is not relevant to the admitted contention. Argument: The objection should be overruled for the reasons stated in the argument for Interrogatory No. 4. The licensee states no reason why it believes the interrogatory is not relevant, despite its obvious relevance derived from sub part n to Contention VII. Vermont needs to understand what facts and evidence the licensee has or will develop in testimony related to a water seal in this containment leakage path after a design basis accident. The licensee should be compelled to answer the
, interrogatory and to supplement if additional information is developed.
Jnterrogatory No.16 A HVY 89-64 at page 13 of 18 states,
" Vermont Yankee believes that there is reasonable asw_rance that this penetration (X-9B] will be water sealed after a design basis accident" (emphasis added).
- a. State the measure or standard of
- reasonable assurance" that Vermont Yankee has used to make this statement.
- b. Identify the calculation performed to demonstrate this reasonable assurance,
- c. lias this calculation been reviewed and approved in accordance with YOOAP I A, Section 111, Design Control?
If your answer is affirmative, please state the date of approval and the name of the reviewer and approver. ! i
- d. Has this calculation been submitted to the NRC staff for review? If your answer is affirmative, please identify the document provided to the NRC staff.
17 L J
19 m .i o , ; l: y2 d M' ! 4 1
$- Objection:
Vermont Yankee objects to this interrogatory on the ground that it is not relevant to the admitted contention, j Argument: l ha The subject of this interrogatory is relevant for the reasons stated j in the foregoing argument, and for these reasons the objection should be . 1 overruled. The subject of " measure or standard of ' reasonable t . assurance'" is covered in the Arguments for Interrogatories Nos.144 and . 1 h , 145. Because of the licensee's method of response to those "j 1 interrogatories and because it relates to Vermont's intended
,. {
demonstration regarding containment integrity, Vermont must understand ; what Vermont Yankee means by the term " reasonable assurance" used in f BVY 89 64. Thus, the licensee must be compelled to supply a proper .; response to this interrogatory. ]
- a Interrogaton* Nt,.19 ;
Does Vermont Yankee agree that the following statement from j LER 89-07 at page 4 of 5 is true? i "No similar events have been reported to the Commission on CA- a 89C in the last five years." , if your answer is anything other than an_ unqualified affirmative, ! f please state every reason for your answer. Objection: i Vermont Yankee _ objects to this interrogatory on the ground that it is not relevant W the admitted contention. ; Response: , Without waiving the foregoing objection, but rather ! l- expressly relying upon the same, Vermont Ynnkee supplies the ; i 1- following information: { s : l 18 . m i ll , l >
p la No. As we.believe SOV to be aware, after the preparation of the LER containing this statement, it was discovered that the most recent failure of valve CA 89C was just within the stated a five year period. This was discussed with the NRC Resident Inspector, and it was agreed that the 1984 failure would be ;
. identified in the 1989 'Iype A test report. The failure was reported as agreed on page 8 of 18 of that report. ;
i Argument: The objection should be overruled for the reasons stated in the argument for Interrogatory No. 4. The licensee admits that the LER statement quoted is not true. Vermont Yankee must be compelled to correct this statement in accordance with this Board's Memorandum and Order of May 24, 1990, at 17:
"The LER's are, of course, prepared and submitted to the NRC.
by the Licensee...lf Licensee now believes that some of these documents may nnt be truthful or accurate, it should promptly advise the Board and parties." (emphasis in original) Collaboration between the NRC Senior Resident inspector and Vermont Yankee is not grounds for an untruthful record when required otherwise by the Board. Vermont Yankee, having been instructed once, should now be compelled to correct this and any other false statements in its LER's under penalty of abandoning the proceeding. interrogatory No. 21 Please state whether Vermont Yankee believes that calculated radiological consequences of the design basis accident (s) would exceed the limits of 10 CFR Part 100 for the 2 hour site boundary thyroid and whole body doses using the following assumptions: l l 19 L
p4 o (1) TID 14844 fission product release fractions. (2) Standby gas system filter efficiency of 90% for halogens, 95% for particulates. (3) Imss of offsite power. (4) The worst effect single failure. (5) Design Basis Earthquake, with failure of equipment and structures consistent with Vermont Yankee's current-licensing basis. (6) _ 'IT.e "as found" 1989 containment leakage rates (assuming no credit for isolation of the leakage from FDW 96A and assuming the worst effect single failure on the containment isolation function). Type A leakage 0.531%/ day 1 Type B leakage - 0.15 %/ day Type C leakage -
, FDW 96A Could not pressurize LRW-83 10 lbm/hr LRW-94 0.856 lbm/hr' LRW 95 .5.33 lbm/hr CA 89C Could not pressurize PCAC-6, -7, 6A, -tiB, 7A, -7B
> 25.12 lbm/hr PCAC-8, 9, -10, -23 3.295 lbm/hr Other valves per BVY 89 64, Appendix C (7) Other assumptions consistent with Vermont Yankee's current licensing basis, if your answer is anything other than an unqualified affirmative, then please state every reason for your answer, and for each reason:
- a. State each and every fact on which your reason is based.
- b. Describe all of the evidence in Vermont Yankee's possession or of which Vermont Yankee has knowledge that Vermont Yankee contends establishes each such fact.
20 l i
p , e c .
. 1 i
?
- c. For each reason, either provide the technical qualifications (education, employment history, licenses and certificates, experience, or other information that Vermont Yankee
~
contends establishes the qualifications of the person), of U any person on whose expertise Vermont Yankee relics for the reason or state that Vermont Yankee does not rely upon the expertise of any person for the reason. Objection: '< Vermont Yankee objects to this interrogatory on the ground that it is not relevant to the admitted contention, and on , m the further ground that is not relevant to any licensing issue, for ' the reasons set forth below. Response: , Without waiving the foregoing objection, but rather , expressly relying upon the same, Vermont Yankee supplies the following information: , This question seems to be asking for the radiological : results of a design basis LOCA, combined with multiple failures, and with types B and C leakage results being added to the type A ; results. No such analysis is required nor has one been performed. Types A, B, and C leak rates are not additive. (See letter USNRC to VYNPC dated 6/16/87.) The type A test result is the , integrated leakage result for the containment. BVY 89 64 calculated an "as-found" integrated leakage rate for the 1989 test ; ' based on repair work performed to penetration and values prior - to the type A test. The result was an "as found" leakage of
.571%/ day, which is well below the leakage rate of 1.5%/ day, i
.which has been determined to meet the 10 CFR 100 dose criteria.
See the response to Interrogatory No. 3, above. ; ! Argument: The objection should be overruled for the reasons stated in the argument for Interrogatory No. 4. The response to this interrogatory is specifically relevant since Vermont believes, first that these assumptions are the proper current licensing basis assumptions, the " safety standards applicable to this plant" (from Contention Vil), and' secondly that the results will show doses above 10 C.F.R. Part 100 limits. These high 21
l-1; f m f
, doses are a result of containment isolation valves which the maintenance j
. program has failed "to' maintain and/or determine and replace [such that !
1 - they are) found to have aged to a point where they no longer meet the { safety standards applicable to this plant" (from Contention VII). This response is evasive and incomplete and the licensee should be compelled 'to provide a proper response. Here again the licensee has just not answered the question Vermont has asked. The licensee evades
,' with a " red herring" discussion of additive Type A, B and C results, . i claiming this represents multiple failure. Vermont has asked for no such 1 multiple failures. -Instead, Vermont seeks the licensee's facts and -{
evidence related to a design basis loss of coolant accident. Accident - ( reactor pressure and accident containment pressure (back through the e break) would result upon Valve FDW 28B (known to leak', see response j[ to Interrogatory No.192), and through Valve FDW 96A, which was '
. unable to be pressurized (feedwater flow stops at the beginning of the
. accident and feedwater must be assumed to drain from tmn seismic .j portions of the secondary system). This creates a path for containment {
leakage into the turbine building. Vermont believes this rate of leakage ; would be greater than the licensee's current licensing basis leakage. ] *
, Vermont emphasizes that none of these assumptions are " multiple" or "beyond design basis," but rather only result from the "as found" :
condition of containment in March,1989. ; Vermont has therefore asked the licensee's position on this and is -l entitled to all the facts and evidence that the lice.nsee has or will use in i testimony concerning this scenario. The licensee should be compelled to j provide all that is known now relating to this interrogatory, and should i be required to supplement with any additionally developed information it 9 intends to use as evidence. ; I Interrogatory No. 22 In the foregoing interrogatory, does Vermont Yankee believe that j any of the assumptions (1) through (7) are not part of, or are not . ! consistent with, the current licensing basis? If the answer is affirmative: i L L 22 b 5 7 - , . . - . _ ,,, _w , _ ,_.,
w , p c :, ! i f~' i i P a. P! case state each assumption that Vermont Yankee believes i is not part of, or not consistent with, the current licensing basis,
- b. Please describe the reason why Vermont Yankee believes each stated assumption is not part of, or not consistent '
p with, the current licensing basis. Objection: Vermont Yankee objects to this interrogatory on the ' ground that it is no'. relevant to the admitted contention. Argument: The objection should be overruled and the licensee should be compelled to provide a proper response for the reasons stated in the foregoing argument. : t InitrEngatory No. 24 L Does Vermont Yankee agree with the following statement: i "The Vermont Yankee maintenance program failed to - F maintain and/or determine and replace PCAC exhaust valves (penetration X-25), which were found to have aged ' to a point where they no longer met the safety standards i i applicable to Vermont Yankee in 1987 by exceeding the - allowahle leakage rate in technical specification 3.7.A 4, such that these same valves failed again in 1989 to meet the safety standards by exceeding the allowable leakage rate in technical specification 3.7.A 4 as stated in 13VY 89-64, 'the total penetration leakage could not be measured with onsite testing equipment ... the root cause of the torn , seats revealed that the damage was due to normal went."' (emphasis added) r If your answer is anything other than an unqualified affirmative, then please state every reason for your answer, and for each reason: ;
- a. State each and every fact on which your reason is based. :
23
- r b
Y
x e f C L L
, b. Describe all of the evidence in Vermont Yankee's possession or of which Vermont Yankee has knowledge that Vermont Yankee contends establishes cach such fact.
- c. For each reason, either provide the technical qualifications (education, employment history, licenses and certificates, experience, or other information that Vermont Yankee contends establishes the qualifications of the person), of any person on whose expertise Vermont Yankee relies for the reason or state that Vermont Yankee does not rely upon the expertise of any person for the reason.
Objection: Vermont Yankee objects to this interrogatory on the ground that it is not relevant to the admitted contention.
Response
Without waiving the foregoing objection, but rather o expressly relying upon the same, Vermont Yankee supplies the following information: 4 The quoted statement is false. . First, the included premise, that the existence of leakage greater than the technical-
! ,- specification limits is considered a failure to meet the " current
.- licensing basis," is erroneous for the reasons set forth above in
,, response to interrogatory No. 6, The quoted statement is also false because it is based on inaccurate and distorted accounting of the facts of record. The maintenance history of the subject PCAC valves (penetration X-
- 25) clearly shows an aggressive attempt to solve the problems with leak rate failures. In addition, in each and every case when leak rate failure occurred the valve was repaired and passed retest prior to startup. As stated in the 1989 Primary Containment ,
Leakage Rate Testing Report (Attachment to BVY 89 64), the i PCAC system exhaust line is comprised of six valves tested as a group. In 1987, the failure was attributed to PCAC-6 and PCAC-7 disc to disc seat misalignment. The 1989 failure was caused by
" damage due to normal wear" of valve seats on two other valves (PCAC-6A and PCAC-6B) and a packing leak on a third valve j (PCAC 7A). Thus, the implication in this question that "the same valves failed again" is false and is shown to be so by the very-24 4
[; g } F , document SOV cites. Further, Vermont Yankee's maintenance program detected these problems, took corrective nction and the valves have passed retest. Beyond that, on account of Vermont Yankee's conservative decision-making and its commitment to safety, it went beyond the simple repair and retest of the component and further committed to the " development of a preventative maintenance schedule for replacing the seats." Finally, we note that the matters in question had nothing . to do with " aging." Argument ! The objection should be overruled for the reasons st'tted in the argument for Interrogatory No. 4. This respanse is evasive and incomplete and the licensee shou'd be compelled to provide a proper response. The interrogatory asked whether a certain condition (failure to maintain valves) resulted in "no longer meet [ing) safety standards." Licensee responds, not in terms of the " safety standards" of the plant, but rather in terms of " current licensing basis." is Vermont to infer that the licensee equates " safety standards" of the plant with " current licensing basis?" Vermont tried to make this clear with Interrogatories Nos. 4 and 144; yet each response i gives a different impression leaving Vermont with the impression that 7 licensee is attempting to confuse Vermont and this Board. The licensee should be compelled to make clear whether it accepts " current licensing basis" for the " safety standards" of the plant. -Also, the licensee should , provide Vermont and this Board all its facts and vidence demonstrating ; that technical specification limits are not safety standards of the plant, if it so believes. Next licensee states "each and every case when leak rate failure occurred the valve was repaired and passed retest prior to startup." This-is all well and good, but Vermont has requested "cach and every fact on ;. which your reason is based." If the licensee so claims that the " valve was repaired," then licensee must provide facts which show that this e 25
+ .*, . +
p t. o i repair can be accomplished during the period between onset of the design basis accident and containment pressurization when isolation is i
, required for the safety standard of the plant. Vermont believes this is highly unlikely. The licensee should be compelled to answer the ,
interrogatory by providing all facts it will use and all supporting : evidence. Otherwise the reason, "the valve was repaired and passed," ! must be disallowed as unsupported by fact and evidence. ; L : Licensee's statement, " Vermont Yankee's maintenance program detected these problems, took corrective action and the valves have passed retest," is patently evasive. In this proceeding, the licensee has , the burden to prove its maintenance program can detect and replace aging equipment before it is found to have aged such that safety standards are not met. Thus, by making the statement that the mair'enance program fixed the problem ahcI failure, the licensee proves Vermont's Contention VII. The licensee should be compelled to answer this interrogatory with an unqualified affirmative. Finally, licensee states, "we note that the matters in question had > nothing to do with ' aging'." This means the licensae believes that
" normal wear" is not " aging." The licensee should be compelled to supply all its facts and evidence proving that normal wear is not aging, f Interrogatory No. 25 Please describe in detail the " plans to develop a preventive '
maintenance schedule for replacing the seats (of the PCAC exhaust valves]" (quoted from BVY 89 64 at page 9 of 18).
. Response:
The commitment to develop the plan in question calls for a due date of 11/15/90. 26 m
4 I Argument: This response is evasive and the licensee should be compelled to provide a proper response. Vermont does not ask when the commitment is due. Instead, Vermont asks " describe in detail the plans." Vermont cannot and this Board should not believe that, in 18 months since failing the Type C test, Vermont Yankee has no idea of its " plans to develop a preventive maintenance schedule." If true, then an inadequate maintenance program is clearly revealed. Vermont believes instead that the licensee is being intentionally evasive to burden both Vermont and this Board. The licensee should be compelled to describe in detail all it knows now about such " preventive maintenance schedule j for replacing the seats" and should supplement with the plan which is due11/15/90. Vermont also believes that, because of the extended - duration involved here, the Board should compel the licensee to explain why corrective action was not promptly implemented. interrogaton' No. 27 Does Vermont Yankee agree with the following statement:
"The Vermont Yankee maintenance program failed to maintain and/or determine anci eplace containment isolation valves LRW-83, 94, -95, which were found to have aged to a point where they no longer met the safety standards applicable to Vermont Yankee in 1987 by exceeding the allowable leakage rate in technical specification 3.7 A4, such that these same valves failed again in 1989 to meet the safety standards by exceeding the :
allmvable leakage rate in technical specification 3.7 A.4 with , the stated root cause identified in BVY 89 64 as, ' wear of the seating surface [over time] resulted in the increased t-leakage."' if your answer is anything other than an unqualified affirmative, . i then please state every reason for your answer, and for each reasom
- n. State aach and ~7 act f on which your reason is based. -
27
y b - s, (
- b. Describe all of the evidence in Vermont Yankee's possession or of which Vermont Yankee has knowledge that Vermont Yankee contends establishes each such fact.
- c. For each reason, either provide the technical qualifications (education, employment history, licenses and certificates, experience, or other information that Vermont Yankee contends establishes the qualifications of the person), of any person on whose expertise Vermont Yankee relies for the reason or state that Vermont Yankee does not rely o upon the expertise of :iny person for the reason.
Objection f Vermont Yankee objects to this interrogatory on the' ground that it is not relevant to the admitted contention. a Response: Without waiving the foregoing objection, but rather expressly relying upon the same, Vermont Yankee supplies the following information: The quoted statement is false. First, the included premise, that the existence of leakage greater than the technical specification limits is considered a failure to meet the " current licensing basis," is erroneous for the reasons set forth above in response to Interrogatory No. 6. The maintenance history of the subject valves (LRW-83, - 94, -95) clearly shows an aggressive attempt to solve the problems with leak rate failures. In addition, in each and every. case when leak rate failure occurred the valve was repaired and passed retest prior to startup. As SOV is aware, and as is stated in the 1989 Leak Rate Test Report, 'The leak rate history on these valves, prior to 1987, was excellent." Also VY further committed to additional efforts "to improve this penetrations leak tightness." The discovery through surveillance of this problem, the subsequent repair and successful retest, and the commitment to the NRC to take additional steps in this area are examples of effort that show, contrary to the SOV assertion, the program at VY has succeeded 28
.i 1.
r' L F t', and .further that VY is committed to ensure that this will continue j L in the future. , Argument: , This response is in the same form as the response to ; interrogatory No. 24. Vermont refers to the arguments of Interrogatory , No. 24 and makes the same arguments here regarding overruling licensee's objection, ute of " current licensing basis
- and reliance upon
- , " subsequent repair and successful retest." For these reasons, the licensee
! should be compeiled to make a proper response,
'i Interrogatory No. 30 ;
Does Vermont Yankee agree with the following statement: .
"The Vermont Yankee ma!ntenance program failed to i maintain and/or determine and replace containment isolation valves PCAC-8, 9, -10 and 23 (penetration X 26) which were found to have aged to a point where they no longer met the safety standards applicable to Vermont E Yankee in 1987 by exceeding the allowable leakage rate in technical specification 3.7 A.4, such that these same valves failed again in 1989.to meet the safety standards by exceeding the allowable leakage rate in technical specification 3.7.A.4 by a greater amount."
a If your answer is anything other than an unqualified affirmative, 1 then please state every reason for your answer, and.for each reason:
- a. State each and every fact on which your reason is based,
- b. Describe all of the evidence in Vermont Yankee's.
L possession or of which Vermont Yankee has knowledge thht Vermont Yankee contends establishes each such fact.
- c. For each reason, either provide the technical qualifications (education, employment history, licenses and certificates, experience, or other information mat Vermont Yankee contends establishes the qualifications of the person), of
- any person on whose expertise Vermont Yankee relies for 29
e 3- ,
! t .
L i l- . f the reason or state that Vermont Yankee does not rely upon the expertise of any person for the reason. Objection: Vermont Yankee objects to this interrogatory on the (' ground that it is not relevant to the admitted contention. Resp (mse: 1 l
^
l .Without waiving the foregoing objection, but rather ' expressly relying upon the same, Vermont Yankee supplies the following information: The quoted statement is false. First, the included premise, 1 that the existence of leakage greater than the technical ' h
- specification limits is considered a failure to meet the " current -
licensing basis," is erroneous for the reasons set forth above in ; response to Interrogatory No. 6. The maintenance history of the subject valves clearly shows . r an aggressive attempt to solve the problems with leak rate failures, in addition, in each and every case when leak rate ' , failure occurred the valve was icpaired and passed retest prior to [ startup. <4 Moreover, in 1987, "the root cause of the failure was determine <' to be misalignment of the disc to disc seat on ... PCAC-8." In 1989, the root cause was identified to be " excessive. - seat leakage through ... PCAC-8. The investigation into the root 3 t cause revealed that the seating material was damaged." A! new' seat was placed in the valve in 9/5/87 using the manufacturers authorized replacement parts. See the response to Interic;;aiarv U No. 33. The change in seating material was the cause of the i failure of the valves' new seats to last even onycycle. Since the j seats that were leaking were new, VY cannot agree with the SOV. false assertion that these valves "were found to have aged to a point whcre they no longer met'the safety standards applicable...."
; The VY maintenance program was successful in determining that o seat leakage existed, replacing the valve deats and further looking ! for the root cause of the problem to ensure appropriate corrective action was taken. This' history, which is fully explained in BVY 89 64, shows that contrary to SOV's assertson, VY's maintenance program has been very eficctive.
30
Rfm v .yw+ 6 J 'y . fin-
; qib
.i'J, r
, [p: M gj, ? Argument:.
;. This response is in the same form as the response to g4 . Interrogatory No. 24. Vermont refers to the arguments of 4aterrogatory
.,, . No. 24 and makes the same arguments here regarding overruling h
)
m licensee's objection, use of " current licensing basis" and reliance upon D 4
'" subsequent repair and successful retest." For these reasons, the licensee
]4
;~~
. should be compelled to make a proper response.
In addition, the licensee apparently is claiming that the
; degradation of the "new" seats is not an aging phenomena. Vermont Yankee should be compelled to provide all its facts and evidence which-prove that this degradation was not aging. ]
q
. .>. . l
.l y 4.. Interronatory No. 31
;m a f" Does: Vermont Yankee agree with the following statement:
\n ,
)
[ '
"The root :ause of the leakage [from valve PCAC-8] '.
E revealed Iiat the sealing material was changed [by or as a result c' ve Vermont Yankee Maintenance Program]. The new m: < >ial {was] a synthetic material which {was] not as soft ory.iable as the previously installed seats. This ~ , result [ed] in a less effective seal to resist leakage." If your answer is anything other than an unqualificil affirmative, ; then please state;every reason for your answer, and for each reason: i
.. State each and every fact on which your reason is based.,
b.' -Describe all of the evidence in Vermont Yankee's possession or of which Vermont Yankee has knowledge ; that Vermont . Yankee contends establishes each such fact. 3
, c. For each; reason, either provide the technical qualifications- '
(education, employment history, licenses and certificates, experience, or other information that Vermont Yankee contends establishes the qualifications of the person), 'of-l any person on whose expertise Vermont Yankee relies for 31 I l 3
-- l,
' ,, _ _ . . _ - - - _ - - - - _ _ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ~ - - - " '
t
-b 4 a_ ,
+
. ii - the reason or state that Verm'ont ankee does not rely - ' upon the expertise of any person for the reason. Objection:
- t Vermont Yankee objects to this interrogatory on the ,
> -' ground that it is not relevant to the admitted contention.
Response
Without waiving the foregoing objection, but rather expressly relying upon the same,: Vermont Yankee supplies the following information:
'VY recognizes this quote to be from the discussion regarding X-26 PCAC, see pg. 9 of 18 of the Primary .
~ Containment Leakage Rate Testing 1989 report, an attachment to BVY 89 6.4. Vermont Yankee agrees that the statements made in; the: original language of the report were trae at the time the
> report was written and, to the extent we are aware, are still.true. "
However, a comparison of SOV's edited version of the statements and the facts, which are set forth in the response to Interrogatory No. 30, reveals how SOV has distorted th statements contained in the report, and obviously we do not agree with the message. conveyed by the editorially distorted rendition. ,
. Argument:
- The objection should be overruled for the reasons stated in the -
argument for Interrogatory No. 4.
-This response is evasive and incomplete and the licensee should be compelled to provide a proper response. -Licensee's respose here. ,
defic ~s understanding. First the answer is "yes", then "no". The interrogatory required that a "no" answer provide facts, evidence ,md expertise, none of which is provided. Vermont submits that the mly response the licensee can make is an unqualified affirmative. Vennont's so called." edited version" only emphasizes the obvious, i&, that it was the Vermont Yankee Maintenance Program which evaluated and effected the change to a sealing material which was inadequate. If the licensee does not agree with this, it must reveal the facts, evidence and expertise
; . to prove this.
~
32
' k" E
- p. ,
w, ( n w __ My e Ik,,-4.. 1 I ^ Interronatory No. 35 : Does Vermont-Yankee agree that the failure of valve PCAC-8 to maintain containment integrity within the' limits of technical specification 3.7.A.4~ due to replacement of the seating material of valve PCAC 8 with : a new "synth. etic material which is not as -soft or pliable .as the previously
. installed seats," is an example in which an action of the maintenance
-program caused 'a condition to ' occur in which the seating material of valve PCAC-8 was found to have aged to a point where it no longer s, '
met the safety standards (due to exceeding technical specification 3.7.A.4 J
. leakage ~ rate) of the Vermont Yankee plant? -
p
, if your answer is anything other than an unqualified affirmative, 3 "' .nen please state every reasori for your answer, and for each reason:
- a. State each and every fact on which your reason is based.
r ,- a bi Describe all of the evidence in Vermont Yankee's possession or. of which Vermont Yankee has knowledge
- l. ,
that Vermont Yankee contends establishes'each such fact. p c. For each reason, either provide the tecmical qualifications
'(education, employment history, licenset and certificates,
? experience, or other information that Vermont Yankee - contends establishes the qualifications cf the person), of
- any person on whose expertise Vermont Yankee relies for o the reason or state that Vermont Yankee does not rely upon the expertise of any person for the. reason.
,4 Objection: Vermont Yankee objects to this interrogatory on the ground that it is not relevant to the admitted contention. Response: - Without waiving the foregoing . objection, but rather expressly relying upon the sam'e, Vermont Yankee supplies the following information:
,< - No. Please see our response to Interrogatory No. 6, which demonstrates that no Technical Specification provision was violated. ~1n addition, as stated in the Primary Containment Leakage Testing 1989 Report (attachment to BVY 89-64), "f or 33
f 4
?.
I u; (' 4 t-. this penetration, a containment isolation valve, in both potential
' leak paths,' had leakage less [than) that allowed." Please also see our response to Interrogatory No. 30, which shows both that the "cause" of matter in question was dehors the maintenance '
- : program, as well as that the subject in question has nothing to do with aging. Therefore, the staument in the interrogatory is false, and.we do not agree with it.
i Argument: J The objection should oc overruled for the reasons stated in the' )
- argument for Interrogatory No. 4.
This response is evasive and incomplete and the licensee should q be compelled to provide a proper response. LER 89 07 clearly states, at . :
}
1: l "On 2/16/89,2/17/89,3/5/89 and 3/7/89 while performing Type C Leak Rate Testing with the Plant shutdown for the
, j 1 1989 refuel outage, ... Primary Containment Atmospheric Control Valve []-PCAC-8 ... [was) found to have seat leakage above that permitted by Technical Specification >
Section 3.7.A.4." q i
. . If Vermont Yankee believes the technical specification limit was not exceeded, it must be required to correct its statement in LER 89c ~
07, as Vermont has argued concerning Interrogatory No.- 19 above. j However, Vermont believes the technical specification limit was clearly; exceed < J and urges the Board to this conclusion. See'also the argument 3
- for' Interrogatory No. 6.
Licensee's statement, "the 'cause' of matter in question was dehors i the maintenance program," also needs challenge from this Board. Licensee's basis for this statement is apparently from the response to
~ Interrogato;y No. 30:
"A new seat was place in the valve in 9/5/87 using the L ' manufacturers [ sic) authorized replacement parts...The change in the seating material .vas-the cause of the failure '
of the valves' new seats to last even one cycle." 34 ba-
e , g. q 1 '
, , i. ,
w y h , N ,s ' Vermont-Yankee is apparently saying that replacement of seating _ material'with a " manufacturer's authorized replacement" is not part of-
, the maintenance program. But in response to Interrogatory'(Set No.1)
No. 53: .
"VYNPS has the qualifications and expertise _within its staff ~7 to make these types (regarding vendor recommendations)-of .
assessments. In addition, VYNPS staff is more familiar with the performance of plant equipment and the
- environmental conditions, equipment history, and other s specific criteria applicable to the judgements in question:' .{'
nm Licensee cannot have it both ways. However, Vermont believes , this Board can decide that-the licensee bears the responsibility to , [j evaluate " manufacturer's authorized replacement" through the quality
, j assurance aspect of its maintenance program. .i
. As in Interrogatory No. 30, the licensee here is apparently claiming that the degradation of the "new" seats is not an aging phenomena.
Finally, the interrogatory requests facts, evidence and expertise - supporting a negative response. None of these are provided. Vermont i believes the licensee is evading providing an obviously affirmative l response and requests the Board to. compel the licensee to provide a R
- clear and complete response, j u !
l-Interrogatory No. 36 : i L Please describe in detail the " plans to access the availability of ; returning to the previously installed seats.or developing a preventive .j maintenance schedule using new seats (for the PCAC-8 valve]" (quoted .l from BVY 89-64 at page 10 of 18). l
- Objection
Vermont Yankee objects to this interrogatory on the ! ground that it is not relevant to the admitted contention, a 6 35 q a t 2
- p. ,
f.-
's t
Response
.Without waiving the foregoing objection, but rather expressly relying upon the same, Vermont Yankee supplies the 1
- following information: <
Please see the response to Interrogatory No. 25. " Argument: The licensee should be compelled to provide a complete response to this interrogatory for the reasons stated for Interrogatory No.'25. I interrogatory No. 41 ; Please describe in detail Vermont Yankee's qualification and experience' requirements for each and every position in the maintenance and technical services departments. Response: , This question is duplicative of SOV Interrogatories (Set No.
- 1) Nos. 2,3 and 4. This information can be derived from a t review of job descriptions that have already been provided to SOV.
' Argument:
This interrogatory is different from Interrogatories (Set No.1) l Nos. 2, 3 and 4. Those interrogatories requested information about p_ersons. This interrogatory requests information about positions. ; Vermont has argued previously that the response provided to . Interrogatories (Set No.1) Nos. 2,3 and 4 is burdensome for the , information about persons (see " Motion to Compel Answers to Interrogatories (Vermont Set No.1)," at 14-19. It would be even more burdensome to.try and sift through all that information to determine 3 " qualification and experience requirements" for positions, if that were possible. -However, the licensee is able to provide this information without burden, and should be compelled to do so. 36
w ' g" J o{j
', Interrogatory No. 41 Please describe in detail each and every example that demonstrates Vermont Yankee established the significance of degradation by evaluating "the rate of degradation" as asserted in Vermont Yankee's response to Vermont Interrogatory,(Set No.1) No.-
106. The description should include, but not be limited to, identification of the following:
- a. Each and every individual involved;
- b. Each and every document produced; and
- c. Each and every method by which the rate of degradation
' was evaluated by Vermont- Yankee.
Response: - In response to SOV Interrogatory (Set No.~ 1) No.106, Vermont Yankee stated that each case where " age related degradation (or any degradation) is observed, response and evaluation is on a case by case basis. The specifics of each evaluations are dispositioned and may be found via the-Maintenance Request process or via the trending program as defined in AP 0200, both of which have previously been made available for SOV's inspection. Some recent examples where the rate of degradation-not necessarily age-related degradation-was evaluated and caused some modification to the maintenance requirements of a particular component are: CA-89C (see he response to Interrogatory No. 20). 125 VDC Station Battery replacement. Establishment of shorter surveillance intervals or Scram Solenoid Values. Recire pipe IGSCC crack propagation evaluation.
.[ Argument:
This response is evasive and incomplete and the licensee should be compelled to provide a complete response. This interrogatory asks for . individuals, documents and methods of evaluating rate of 37 5
/
L t l ,' [ : b ' degradation, a completely reasonable exploration of Interrogatory (Set
; No.1) No.106. Licensee provides none of these,' offering instead some-
-ill-defined "recent examples." Licensee offers no objection,t either to ;
relevance or to burden. Therefore, the licensee should be compelled to o answer the interrogatory Vermont asked. ; Interrogatory No. 50 Please describe in detail each and every reason why Vermont
, , - Yankee asserts in its answer to Vermont Interrogatory (Set"No.1) No. ,
110 there will be a "high degree of confidence" that the primary containment has the ability to meet its design basis requirements. For each reason, please describe: ,
- a. Each and every fact upon which your reasons arel based;
- b. All evidence in Vermont Yankee's possession or of which Vermont -Yankee has knowledge that Vermont Yankee believes establishes each'such fact; and '
1
- c. Either the technical qualifications (education, employment history, licenses and certificates, experience, or other information that Vermont Yankee contends establishes the .
-qualifications'of the person), of any person on whose l expertise Vermont Yankee' relies for the reason or state'
~
that Vermont. Yankee does not rely upon the expertise of any person for the reason. 9 Objection: l Vermont Yankee objects to this interrogatory on the ground that it is not relevant to the admisted contention. . Argument: ,
, The objection should be overruled for the reasons stated in the argument for Interrogatory No. 4. Vermont' intends to show that the-licensee's inadequate maintenance program did not maintain the containment coating such that it replaced or repaired the coating before >
it was found to have aged to a point where it no longer met the safety standards applicable to the plant. Thus, interrogatories regarding the 38 e t ;
p n at 1; i degradation of the containment coating, and its effects, are specifically-relevant. In addition, this interrogatory explores a response to a previous interrogatory. The licensee cannot make' statements in one response, and refuse to defend them as not relevant in another response. Thus, the licensee should be compelled to provide a' complete response to this interrogatory. Interronatory No. 51
- Please describe in detail what Vermont Yankee means by
" essentially precluded" in its response t ; Vermont Interrogatory (Set No.
- 1) No.110 with regard to potential oxidation of the containment surface.
The description should include, but not be limited to, identification'of the following:
- a. Each and every fact upon which your statement is based;
- b. The extent to which your statement' applies lto interior and exterior surfaces of the primary containment; and 1
- c. All evidence in Vermont Yankee's possession or of which - -l Vermont Yankee has knowledge that Vermont Yankee believes establishes ~each such fact.
L Objection: ,
~
1
-Insofar as this interrogatory refers to " exterior surfaces of.
-j
~ the primary containment," Vermont Yankee objects to the J interrogatory on the ground that it.is beyond the scope of the j
+ admitted contention.
Response: ) Insofar as this interrogatory refers to " interior surfaces.of 1 the primary containment," please see the response to Interrogatory l' No.45 i 1 39
a Argument: The reference to Interrogatory No. 45 appears to provide'the licensee's " reasons." However, licensee has not provided facts, evidence and expertise, as requested. Licensee should be compelled to provide a complete response' and should be held in testimony to the facts, evidence
+
and expertise identified. Interrogaton' No. 52 Vermont Yankee asserts in its response to Vermont Interrogatory (Set No.1) No.110 that the decision not to reapply topcoat material over the inorganic zine primer was appropriate. !
- a. Please describe in detail each and every reason:that
' demonstrates this decision was appropriate;
- b. Please identify each and every individual involved in the decision; . i L
l L c. Please identify each and every document produced
.,I concerning the decision;
- d. Please describe each and every basis for deciding not to !
reapply topcoat material; and 'i l
- c. Please describe each and every criterion used to determine :f if reapplication of either primer or topcoat material'will be .
required at a future date. jl Response: :
- a. The decision not to re-apply topcoat vias based upon : f the conclusion that the existing inorgar.ic zine primer u '
has provided and continues to provide adequate 1 r corrosion protection for containment surfaces during i
~
times' that the containment is susceptible to corrosion
^1 effects (de-inerted condition), and that a new topcoat 1, , was not needed to maintain this capability. 1
+ b. The recommendation to not re-apply topcoat over the inorganic zine primer was made by the following I
40
.( g
- f.
- n. y , x Y"
v V g ,
\?i ; l^ } i ,
i; - 4 c q , . y ty 4
>u ,
individuals at Yankee Atomic Electric Company; L y
'- m
'A. Tremblay, Senior Engineer; C. H.' Hansen, Senior
- Engineer; D. E. Yasi, Lead Systems Engineer; J. K.
Thayer, Engineering Manager; and S.' Miller, Project ? f Manager. Engineers at. Yankee Atomic was assisted ,
?N in making this recommendation by R. Martin, Stone '
and Webster Coatings Specialist.- The i a ' recommendation was accepted by D.'K. McElwee, Engineering Program Manager, VYNPC, and was approved by D. A. Reid, Operations Support Manager, VYNPC. E
,, c. The following documents were produced concerning this decision:
. Memo, VYS 32/89, Tremblay to Miller, dated !
March 31,1989 - _ Memo, OPVY- 250/89, Smith' to Reid, dated + April 5,1989 Memo, VYB'89/165, McElwee to Miller, .
- dated April 6,1989 n :
- d. See answer (a) above j.
- c. Insofar as this sub-part assumes that there is a -
presently existing set of criteria by which it will be ' . determined in the future to reapply the topcoat that , has been determined not to be necessary, it is in; error. _ With respect to primer, the criterion that is expected to be used:in the future is whether upon - evaluat. ion reapplicationtof primer is required in ord:r to maintain the degree of corrosion protection provided by the existing primer. Argument: l The response to sub-part e is evasive and the licensee should be - s y compelled to' provide a proper response, i f> Concerning topcoat criteria, in " Evaluation of Containment Paint-
. Degradation Effects at Vermont Yankee," attached to Memo VYS 32/89 ,
dated March 31,1989 (referred to in sub-part c), Mr. Tremblay states
;(at 17): E 41 em
g r 7., m a n, , p -
"[T]he primer provides. adequate protection for the primary; W-containment interior surfaces, and no reapplication of .
topcoat is required at this time." (emphasis added) , The use of "at this time" indicates there is some criteria related to primer degradation which must be met so that topcoat reapplication is not necessary. ' Further, in VYS ~32/89, Mr. Tremblay recommends,(at 2): ,
" Based upon inspection results during each subsequent refueling outage, the _ containment paint inspection should' include;an evaluation to ensure the assumptions made to a support the conclusions drawn (for'not reapplying the topcoat)-in the_ attached report remain valid (s&, lower drywell topcoat still intact, lower torus topcoat in good ' ,
- condition, primer remains intact and continues to provide adequate protection for primary containment interior .
surfaces, etc.)" Again, Mr. Tremblay's statement indicates that requirements exist for not reapplying the topcoat. For each of these requirements, there - must be criteria. I-Iow " intact" must the lower drywell remain? : What does " good condition" mean for the torus topcoat? - What does " adequate protection" of the primer for primary containment interior surfaces - , a- mean? What else is included in Mr. Tremblay's "etc."? Licensee's claim that criteria do not exist for topcoat reapplication is clearly evasive based on-its own references. Licensee should be compelled to provide such criteria or admit that its maintenance program is deficient in not -; ! having developed such criteria. Concerning primer criteria, licensee's states such criteria is:. [
"[W]hether upon evaluation reapplication of primer is ~
required in order to maintain the degree of corrosion ", protection provided by the existing primer. This is no answer at all. A criterion is not "whether upon evaluation." A criterion is the acceptance basis upo'n which such evaluation determines that reapplication is necessary. Again, the licensee should be compelled to answer the interrogatory. 1 42
]
p. l - w
n , 3 F , D b ' e
~
laterrogatory No. 53 Does: Vermont Yankee assert that its evaluation of the effects of dryweli paint degradation discovered in the 1989 refueling outage
- conforms witn the followirig:
'The available interceptor area used in . _ t determining the design coolant velocity should '
conservatively account for blockage that may result." (quoted, but not interpreted as , reatilatory minima, from NRC Regulatory Guide 1,82, Rev.1, " Water Sources for' Long- - term Recirculation Cooling Following a Loss-of-Cooling ' Accident") , if your answer is anything other than an unqualified negative, then please state every reason why Vermont Yankee asserts its evaluation is. conservative, and for each reason: ,
- a. State 'each and every fact on which your reason is based; !
- b. Describe all of the evidence in Vermont Yankee's a possession or of which Vermont Yankee has knowledge i that Vermont Yankee contends establishes each such fact; ,
and-
- c. State either the technical qualifications-(education, employment. history, licenses and certificates, experience, or other information that Vermont = Yankee contends t '
establishes the qualifications of the person), of any person - on whose expertise Vermont Yankee relies .for the reason or state that Vermont Yankee does not rely upon the ' expertise of any person-for the reason.
, Objection:
Vermont Yankee objects to this interrogatory, on the i ground that it is not relevant to the admitted contention. 1
Response
Without waiving the foregoing objection, but rather expressly relying upon the same, Vermont Yankee supplies the following information: 43
pc , , ,
~ ~
h 4; M . , i Yb ' 4 q' %
?
p u-'!. Yes, Vermont Yankee agrees that its evaluation conforms y with the quoted assertion, u .
- a. The General Electric evaluation of potential fibrous
-insulation debris (GE-VY 96008,1/22/86) was performed ; utilizing the guidance provided in Regulatory Guide 1.82,
- Revision 1. This fact is stated on the very first page of the General Electric evaluation. YAEC Report 1696, which constitutes VY's Containment Paint evaluation, utilizes the
. General Electric evaluation and expands upon it by considering the amount of NPSH margin available~ at the ECCS suction strainers (" interceptors") beyond that which is lost' by blockage from the conservatively postulated amount of fibrous insulation from th( General Electric evaluation.
Thus, Regulatory Guide 1.82, Revision 1, criteria were utilized to ensure that ECCS suction strainers (" interceptors") are sized for the postulated blockage that . may result.
. b. The' 1989 paint evaluation effort is fully summarized in
.YAEC Report 1696, which has previously been provided to SOV. 1
- c. Messrs. Hansen, Tremblay and Yasi, identified in the response to Interrogatory (Set No.1) No. 77.
" Argument: j
- The objection should be overruled for the reasons stated for Interrogatory 'No. 50.
This response is evasive and confusing; licensee should be , m < compelled to provide a nonevasive response. First, licensee now ~[ references GE calculation GE-VY-86008,1/22/86 as its NPSH basis. In j Interrogatories (Set No.1) Nos. 89. and 90, licensee identified GE calculation "VY LOCA DEBRIS" DRF No.4100-1713, Section 17.32, - t 01/10/86, as the.NPSH basis. The practice of serving up new information from a treasure house'of unrevealed,' though requested,. , j' documents should not be allowed by this-Board. The licensee should be (# , compelled to supplement or correct Interrogatories (Set No.1)'Nos. 89 1
, and 90 (see also Vermont's " Motion to Compel Answers to Interrogatories (Vermont Set No.1)" at 77 79).
I - 44 l k 4
L , t, V 1; ' i Also, the operative word in this interrogatory is " conservatively." Ilas Vermont Yankee " conservatively" accounted for blockage? In reply, Vermont Yankee references YAEC Report 1696 which includes an NPSH calculation considering "NUKON insulation only" (Appendix A, at 4). Data is used from GE Report MDE 184-0885, DRF A00-01713, Revision 1, which also considers NUKON insulation only. YAEC Report 1696 even states at 12:
"[T]here is no data available with regard to paint chip transport or plugging of strainers by paint chips, with or without combination with insulation fibers."
Much of the rest.of YAEC Report 1696 is a rationalization-for accepting a nonconservative assumption (and no' calculation considering a combination of paint and insulation fibers). Considering these facts,.the -! licensee has not provided a proper response regarding reasons, facts, j evidence'and expertise on why it believes its design is conservative. Vermont needs this information for its case preparation and requests the Board to compel Vermont Yankee to provide a nonevasive response. ] Interrogatory No. 54 Vermont Yankee states, in part, in its response to Vermont 1 Interrogatory (Set No.1) No.111 that the " probability of significant paint chip transport to the ECCS suction. trainers in the torus is very low",
- a. Please describe each and every reason why Vermont Yankee so states-i
- b. Please describe all'of the evidence in Vermont Yankee's- 'l possession or of which Vermont Yankee has knowledge q that Vermont Ya'nkee believes establishes the probability of :
that event;
. c. Please describe each and every calculation regarding the ;
significance of paint chip transport to the ECCS suction
, strainers, 45 q l
l
{ 7
' ~
o b .
- j. y
(.. r d." ~ Please describe cach and every technical and ' quantitative bases [ sic] for concluding such probability is very low; and e e .' Please describe the potential consequences of significant paint chip transport, either alone or in combination with - other potential debris, to the ECCS suction strainers.
Response
T The av:.w rs to this Interrogatory are ' discussed in detail in ! YAEC Report 1696, which has previously been provided to SOV. '. Argument:- t This response is evasive and incomplete and the licensee should be compelled.to provide a proper response. At best, YAEC Report - 1696 provides only a response to sub-part a and part of sub part b. , There is no calculation regarding the significance of paint chip transport
.(sub part c), no technical and quantitative bases (sub part d) and.no i description of the potential consequences of significant paint cinp' .
t transport (sub part e). Concerning its evidence -(sub-part b),- the-reference is a proper response if YAEC Report 1696 is the complete '; amount of evidence the'lleensee will use in testimony. Since there is no a objection here, Vermont Yankee should be compelled to make at complete' and nonevasive response. Interrogatory No. 55 ' Please identify the Potentially Reportable Occurrence'(PRO)
; evaluation performed for the drywell paint failures discovered during the -
1989 refueling outage. If no PRO evaluation .was performed, state each 1
, and every reason' why it was not performed.
4 i! Objection: , Vermont Yankee objects to this interrogatory on the ground that it is not relevant to the admitted contention. t W
~
46 ? 3 ..k
]
w t
- 3. i
;b i
g k, *
- . Argument: c .
Interrogatory No. 55 is relevant according to the following logic,
- The licensee was informed that transport of chips could "potentially result in partial blockage of the strainers" (see Interrogatory No. 96).
l According to Vermont Yankee Procedure AP 0010, Rev. 21, at 6, "An . individual who discovers an event or condition which 'could be l
. -' considered a Licensee Event Report" will cause a PRO to be initiated, i
'AP 0010 is listed in Attachment 2 of Vermont Yankee's " Maintenance-
.J Program" policy document. The containment paint chip degradation is ,
relevant to this proceeding as stated in argument for Interrogatory 50. 'l It thus follows that, after being informed, if no PRO was initiated, a breakdown in the licensee's maintenance program (and quality .:' o assurance program) is indicated. For this reason, the objection should - be overruled and the licensee should be compelled to. provide a' proper. response. Interrogatory No. 58 t Vermont Yankee states, in part, in its response to Vermont-
' Interrogatory (Set No.1) No.113 that the " effectiveness of our L_ , ' maintenance program is demonstrated by a number of independent :
parameters... independent assessments performed by...INPO." Please s identify each and every INPO audit, inspection, surveillance, report and other document-that demonstrates the effectiveness of Vermont Yankee's m maintenance program. '; . Objection: L' Vermont Yankee objects to this interrogatory for the ; reasons set forth in its response to SOV's Document Requests (Set No. 2);and request for protective order concerning the same. Argument: t The objection should be overruled for the reasons presented in L Vermont's " Motion to Compel Answers to Document Production L _ Requests (Vermont Set No. 2)," July 5,1990. , 47 l l i'('
!;f i. i The licensee claims to rely on this information, in part, as its
- reason for claiming there is reasonable assurance of safety as stated in Interrogatory (Set No.1) No.113. Vermont Yankee cannot claim to rely on information, and then provide no information concerning the information upon which it relies. This INPO information is thus made specifically relevant to this proceeding. Also,. Vermont can see no valid objection to the mere identification of such documents. .
, The licensee should be compelled to provide the requested information.
Interronatory No. 59 For each and every document identified in Vermont Yankee's response to the preceding interrogatory, please describe in detail all' findings, conclusions, recommendations, strengths, weaknesses, deviations and violations related to the effectiveness of Vermont Yankee's. maintenance program,'
Response
~
Vermont Yankee incorporates by reference its objection to the foregoing interrogatory. Argument
+ .The' objection should be overruled for' the reasons stated in the foregoing argument, and the licensee should be compelled to respond.
. Since these findings, conclusions, recommendations, strengths, weaknesses, deviations and violations are specifically relevant to this ' proceeding, '
Vermont agrees to receive them under protective order of nondisclosure - should the Board determine they involve the candor of an INPO source or insights as to root causes of events and experiences which are frequently found to involve human error. n. 48 1
- .---a__- __ -_.-____.-_-________________m___ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ , _ _ _ __ _ _ ______ _ _ , _ , _ _ _ _ _ , _ , _ _ _ _ _ _ _
- +n .
3 L , c ; 4 l'
, . Interrogatory No. 64' ;
Please describe in detail the process of Vermont Yankee-
". " continually assessing industry initiatives that would further enhance our ,
' programs" as asserted in Vermont Yankee's response' to Vermont
, 4 Interrogatory (Set No.1) No.113. The description should include, but not be limited to,' identification of the following:
- a. .Each and every industry initiative assessed by Vermont Yankee;
- b. The methodology for assessing each such initiative;
- c. Each and every individual involved; and ,
- d. Each and every document produced as a result of such assessment.
3 Ot,setion: l Vermont Yankee objects to this interrogatory, on the ground that it is not relevant to the admitted contention, and'on. ,
' the further ground that, for the reasons set forth below, the assembly of the information sought would be unduly burdensome. '
Response
Without waiving the. foregoing objection, but rather expressly relying upon the same, Vermont Yankee provides the-following information: Vermont Yankee becomes aware of industry initiatives that i might potentially improve.our maintenance program in a number of ways, including through our association with and participation in .the activities of INPO, EPRI, NUMARC and the GE BWR + Owners Group. Usually, initiatives arisiry from groups such as these are assigned for evaluation via'.a formal process that tracks
- the review and approval process to completion. The assessment is assigned by the Department head to the appropriate technical personnel. The resulting assessment is reviewed and approved-by the department head and the next-higher level manager, i
6 49 i
1% b It is not feasible to list each anci every industry initiative
. assessed by Vermont Yankee, the methodology used, the individuals involved, and each and every document produced'as a ,
result. The following, however, are examples of recent such - l assessments: the vendor manual program, the improved motor-operated valve preventive maintenance program, the check valve pre 'entive maintenance program, and the improved eroson/ corrosion monitoring program.
' Argument The relevancy of " industry initiatives" is argued in Section III.B of 1 Vermont's " Motion to Compel Answers to Document Requests (Vermont .
Set No. 2)," July 5,1990. The_ assessment of industry initiatives is also ! made relevant by the licensee's reliance upon such assessment in its j response to' Interrogatory (Set No.1) No.113. Thus the relevancy j objection is without merit. The claim of undue burden is likewise without merit. If the licensee has a " formal process" of trackim industry initiatives, the .! requested information can be gathered from these records. Alternatively, 1 the. licensee can offer these records for inspection and copying, imposing j no burden upon itself (but see the nonresponsive response to Document. .j Request (Set No. 3) No.129). Thus, the objections should be overruled, j The response is evasive and incomplete. Only sub part b appears i i to be addressed. Initiatives (sub-part a), individuals (sub-part c) and documents'(sub part d) are not addressed. The licensee should be compelled to provide Vermont with access to initiatives,' individuals and documents for inspection and copying. (if such access is intended by the present response, this intent should be made clear.) ' Finally, Vermont . notes that here a formal review and approval process is revealed. In ; 6 , response to Interrogatories (Set No. 2) No. 79b, and Nos. 80 through l ,' 105 by reference, the licensee states "[t]here is no formal routing' scheme ; e available." Vermont; Yankee should be compelled to provide accurate, ] J noncontradictory discovery responses. 50 4 m
E
,x L
i Interrogatory No.- 68
. Please describe in detail each and every reason why Vermont LYankee asserts in its response to Verrront Interrogatory (Set No.1) No.
116'that trend analysis "is based on conservative limits with conservative safety factors applied." For each nason, please describe:
- a. Each and every fact upon which your reasons are based;
- b. All evidence in Vermont Yankee's possession or of which Vermont Yankee has knowledge that Vermont Yankee believes establishes each such fact; and
- c. Either the technical qualifications (education, employment history, licenses and certificates, experience, or other
'information that Vermont Ynnkee contends establishes the qualifications of the person), or any person on whose 1 expertise Vermont Yankee relies for the reason or state'. t that Vermont Yankee does nct rely upon the expertise of-any person for the reason.
Response
De trend analysis limits are based on detection of a change in performance that is statistically real (i.e., not normal variation in equipment performance),y Since piant equipment performance is significantly better than that required by the - i Technical Specification LCO limits, the detection of incremental declines in equipment performance proves an early warning'of ~ -1
' declining performance. VY.belic,ves that maintaining equipment.
. j; -reliability such that the operability provisions of the Tech. Spec.' LCOs' are not'normally entered does indeed provide an additional level of conservatism over and above the conservative operability limits already established in the Technical Specifications. Evidence of the conservative nature of this approach'is provided in the examples given in the response to Interrogatory (Set No.1) No. 116. A ., a. See above,
- b. See above.
51
- . , . - --r -
a (i ' 4
- c. Vermont _ Yankee relies upon the collective staff bf-
-. Maintenance Department engineers and management
^ that have the responsibility for implementing t_his-program. - The_ qualifications of these individuals were provided in the response to Document Production Request (Set No.1) No. 2.
Argument-The response provided is not an answer to the interrogatory. - Surely operating within the current licensing basis (the " operability' limits of. the Tech. Spec. LCOs") is not a " conservative [ limit] with conservative-
- safety factors applied" for trend analyses. Performance that is 6 " statistically real" may relate to the stated conservatism of Interrogatory.
(Set 'No.1) No.116,' but the licensee does not say how. The licensee should be compelled to answer the interrogatory that was asked. In addition. Vermont Yankee should be compelled to provide its evidence which shows these " conservative limits with conservative safety factors applied." interrogatory No. 69
'Does Vermont Yankee agree that regulatory requirements for commercial nuclear power plant m;tintenance have increased since the Vermont Yankee plant was granted its original license?
If your answer is anything.other than an inqualified affirmative, then please state every reason for your answer, and for each reasont
- a. State each and every fact on which your reason is based; and
- b. Describe all of the evidence in Vermont Yankee's possession or of which Vermont Yankee has_ knowledge that Vermont Yankee contends establishes each such fact.
Objection: Vermont Yankee objects to this interrogatory ont he ground that it is not relevant to the admitted contention, and on the ground that, as framed, the interrogatory calls for a 52 1
{ llm . i y I "m < Y r t
' characterization of matters of pure law, which is an inappropriate query to propound by an interrogatory, and on the further ground that the subject; matter (historical change lin regulatory N - requirements) is not relevant either to the admitted contention or
, the pending operating. license amendment application.
Argument This interrogatory is relevant on three counts. First, the licensee-
- seems to be arguing that no safety standard of the reasonable assurance ' )
is necessary since the plant was licensed 18 years ago. To address this o" o argument, it is important for Vermont to know whether the licensee
,[ agrees tisat maintenance regulatory requirements have changed in the- j y intervening years. Secondly, to establish a case on how Vermont e
. Yankee may react to maintenance requirement changes from now to' the h
Y extended period, it is necessary to understand how the licensee has - reac ed to these changes from original licensing to the present. The L beg!. ming of this development is to assure agreement that maintenance < regulatory requirements have changed. Third,' Vermont needs this ' , i information to develop its case regarding plant maintenance staffing. Attachment 38-1 of the licensee's response to these interrogatories shows average annual maintenance personnel has risen steadily from 18 in 1972' to 73 in 1990. To understand what the licensee has done withLlicensing . 7
~
- staffing (and therefore will do in the future)-Vermont needs to l '
understand what Vermont = Yankee believes concerning the evolution of , maintenance regulatory requirements. A " characterization of matters of pure law" is not called for. -; Rather, a statement of simple fact is sought. Vermont ' notes that regulatcry requirement, as used here, means not only those items subject to rulemaking, but also those items which are required by.NRR'or the p NRC Senior Resident inspectors (and may be implemented voluntarily at their urging). For these reasons, the objections should be overruled and the licensee should be compelled to provide a proper response, i 53 i. y s 4
ei' ,. Interrogatory No. 70 Does Vermont _ Yankee agree that industry knowledge of commercial nuclear power plant maintenance requirements has increased since the Vermont Yankee _ plant was granted its original license?
'If your answer is anything other than an unqualified affirmative, then please state every reason for your answer, and for each reason:
- a. State. cach and every fact on which your reason is based; and
- b. Describe all of the evidence in Vermont Yankee's possession-or of which Vermont Yankee has knowledge that Vermont Yankee contends establishes each such fact.
Objection: I
~ Vermont Yankee objects to this interrogatory on the ground that.it is not relevant to the admitted contention.
I Response: j Without waiving the foregoing objection, but rather l expressly relying upon the same, Vermont Yankee says that - l
~
because of the ambiguity and generality of the assertion, it.is not-able either to agree or disagree with it, except that, if the. word
" requirements" refers to legal requirements, then Vermont Yankee. '
disagrees. The industry was as aware in 1972 of the legal requirements' of 1972 as it is today of today's= legal requirements.
-1 Argument f The objection should be overruled for the reasons stated in the- 1 fccacoing argument. The licensee has not answered the interrogatory j
, and shauld be compelled to do so. The interrogatory is clear. Itis ;
s asking if Vermont Yankee agrees that the industry knowledge of what q i must be dorie to maintain nuclear power plants has increased in the past 18 years. . Vermont believes the answer is obviously "yes," and therefore requests that a response be compelled. i 54 ti l i 1h w -_ . . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ .___.__s
W ;+e ' ' [9.a f i. gW < (f ' ' o y> ; ) i.: Interrogatory No. 71' ; 9l, Does Vermont Yankee agree that commercial nuclear plant j y. ( maintenance technology has increased since the Vermont Yankee plant was granted its original license? ! fN< If your answer is anything other than an unqualified affirmative, then please state every reason for your answer, and for each reason: g i, a. State each and every fact on which your reason 'is basedi and J b. Describe all of the evidence in Vermont Yankee's I e possession or of which Vermont Yankee has knowledge , that Vermont Yankee contends c::tablishes each such fact. : Objection:- 4
? Vermont Yankee objects to this interrogatory on the ground that it is not relevant to the admitted contention. 4
Response
Without waiving the foregoing objection, but rather expressly relying upon the'same, Vermont Yankee says that because of the ambiguity and generality of the assertion, it s not able either to agree or disagree with it. Argument - j The objection should:be overruled for the reasons stated in the
. argument 'for Interrogatory No. 69. The interrogatory is clear enough. ,
Again, it seems fairly obvious that maintenance technology has become , more sophisticated ("has increased") in the last 18 years, and Vermont is
> ' seeking the licensee's agreement, or reasons'for disagreement with this.
A response should be compelled.- ; 4 - interrogatory No. 72 is
- Does Vermont Yankee agree that a maintenance program found acceptable by the-NRC licensing process at the time the Vermont 7 -Yankee plant was granted its original license is not necessarily an L
acceptable maintenance program for the extended period? h 55 0 1 4i ! t
m 4s ( 4-m_. . If your answer is anything other than an unqualified affirmative,- then please state every reason for your answer, and for sach reason:-
- a. State each and every fact on which your reason is based; and i
- b. Describe all of the evidence in Vermont Yankee's k* possession which Vermont Yankee has knowledge that
' Vermont Yankee contends establishes each such fact. i Response: .
7 No. This question assumes that there are discrete licensing D' criteria applicable to a maintenance program, and that these criteria have changed during the specified interval. Vermont q Yankee is unaware of the existence of such criteria. To the l contrary, Vermont Yankee is aware that the Commission has - 1
; under consideration, but has not acted upon what would be, if 1 enacted, the first " maintenance rule" applicable' to such decisions. )
Ileyond;this limitation, the question assumes that a l
" construction period recapture" operating license amendment must -
demonstrate that the facility will, as of the first day'of extended operations, meet all of the licensing criteria that have been
. imposed subsequent to the' grant of its original operating license.
Vermont Yankee believes that the Commission's policy, even in , the' case of license renewals, is quite to the contrary, d u Argument The licensee has not responded to the interrogatory that was asked and should be compelled to do so. -The quesGon does not. .;
" assume' that there are discrete licensing criteria applicable to the maintenance program" nor does the question mention such criteria or a
" maintenance rule." The question asks if Vermont Yankee believes that - i
^
the acceptable maintenance program 18 years ago will necessarily be the acceptable maintenance program for the extended period. Many factois ; besides " discrete licensing criteria" must be taken into account: Commitments made or required through '"m Information Notices, 1 Ilulletins and Generic Letters; commitme. ade or required as a result of NRC Inspections; and commitmc made or required by the- _
.i 56
t rt , s , p k, o, v-
,m
~[
NRC Senior Resident inspector. Vermont needs this information for the: *
- reasons stated in argument for Interrogatory No. 69.
interronatory No. 73 ' Please describe in detail each and every reason why; Vermont Yankee asserts in its response to Vermont Interrogatory (Set No.1) No. 116 that it has "high expectations for the benefits of the trending. J analysis." For each reason, please describe:
- a. Each and every fact upon which your reasons are based; y
(. b. All evidence in Vermont Yankee's possession or of which Vermont Yankee has knowledge that Vermont Yankee
, believes ' establishes each such fact; and
- c. Either the technical qualifications (education, employment,- 1 J
. history, licenses and' certificates, experience or other .
information that Vermont-Yankee contends establishes'the qualifications of the person), of any person on whose expertise Vermont Yankee relies for the reason or state that Vermont Yankee does not rely upon the expertise of-
~
any person for the reason.
- Response, g N We have such expectations because _the trending program-has provided excellent performance to date. We have no reason to d mht that it will' continue to do so.,
a it would not be practical to marshall every example of this 1 performance, and therefore we cannot supply "[e]ach.and every 1
! ; fact" and 1"[ajll of the evidence" However, some examples are set i
forth in the referenced response to Interrogatory No.116. . R e Additional-facts and evidence will be found in the reports sent to the Maintenance Supervisor pursuant to the Maintenance
= Department Trend Program. Reliance is placed on the 1.
individuals identified in the response to Interrogatory (Set No.1) 1 No.l. o e 57-o l C . I
p .n
=
, q n
L ,
, s
, :q
\' e t Argument 3 Vermont needs this information since predictive maintenance must factor highly into any program to determine and replace equipment
- before it is found to have aged to a point at which safety standards are l not met. The trending analysis is a major part of the predictive ,
maintenance program. If the licensee intends to testify that it has "high expectations for the benefits of the trending analysis" Vermont needs to- 3,
- know each and every fact upon which it will base this testimony, and
, each and every item of evidence which supports these facts, and each a person upon whose expertise the licensee relies. u The response that Vermont Yankee cannot provide this 1 information.is not an ' adequate response. Either the licensee must j u
provide the' facts and evidence upon which the reason is based, or abandon the reason as testimony. Concerning expertise, it is not believable that the set of all respondees to Set No.1 interrogatories (the reference to Interrogatory (Set No.1) No.1) .is the set of individuals who have special expertise. regarding the trending program.
, The licensee should be compelled to provide a complete and 1 proper response.
r Interronatory No. 74 r Vermont Yankee states, in part, in its response to Vermont - J Interrogatory (Set No.1) No.117 "the fact that some components will not last for the duration of the plant's potential service life was ' - anticipated by the original designers and by the Commission." Please describe in. detail each and every component that the' original designers and the Commission anticipated would not last fo_r the duration of the plant's potential' service life. The description should include, but not be limited to, identification of the following:
, a. Each and every such component; 58 t
g-
-m k
b.- Each and .very document that demonstrates the original designers antbipated that some components will not last for the duration o, the plant's potential service lifet and s
- c. Each and every document that demonstrates the Commission anticipated that some components will not last for. the duration of the plant's potential service life.
Objeations m s Vermont Yankee objects to this interrogatory on the L ground that it is not relevant to the admitted contention. Resp (mse: Without waiving the foregoing objection, but rather expressly relying upon the same, Vermont Yankee offers the following information: No such complete list exists, and the preparation of one, were it possible, would require substantial initial research. The point made in the quoted assertion was conceptual, and is conceptually true. An example of a component that was anticipated not to last for 40 years is lead acid storage batteries. See IEEE 450 (" Recommended Practice for Maintenance, Testing and Replacement of Large Lead Storage Batteries for Generating Stations and Substations") and USNRC Regulatory Guide 1.129 (" Maintenance, Testing and Replacement of large lead Storage Hatteries for Nucler Power Plants"). Argument The licensee's olWction of rek&ce should be overruled since
'this interrogatory explores statements made by the licensee in previous discovery. This response is evasive and incomplete. The licensee should be compelled to provide a proper response. Based on licensee's response to Interrogatory (Set No.1) No.117, the quoted statement cannot believably be taken as " conceptual." If the statement were "the fact that some components will not last for the duration of the plant's potential service life was anticipated," then it might pass as conceptual, llowever, the addition of "by the original designers and by the Commission" 'mplies that specific components were in mind. Therefore, 59 l \
m p , w l i Y 4 y ,
, the licensee should be compelled to answer the interrogatory identifyii'g S '
documents fr'om the original designers and documents from the Commission as requested. Otherwise, the lloard should strike from tht record the unsupported statements. 1ptermgatory No. 75 Please describe in detail each and every reason why Vermont Yankee asserts in its response to Vermont Interrogatory (Set No.1) No.
;~ 117 that exclusive reliance is not placed upon design life when 7 determining if a component must be replaced, requalified or upgraded..
The description should include, but not be limited to, identification of
. the following:
- a. The methodology used by Vermont Yankee to determine.
when a component will exceed its service life; and
- b. Each and every procedure used to control the process for
,- making stich determinations.
Response
- 4 The short answer to this question is because we do not share the confidence that the question suggests others have that .
the original design'and designers intended to, or were capable of, anticipating all challenges to the continued functionality of > structures, systems and components. To plac me hypothesized
" exclusive reliance" is the same as closing or - eyes to current
. evidence, a practice that is not consistent eituu the same
, y' operation of a nuclear power plant or the Vermont Yankee approach to things.
Lily analogy, one may (and often does) pay top dollar.for automobile tires with a guaranteed life in units of miles. Smart folks do not, naving done this, thereafter pay no attention to a tread wear ~or to glass in the road. a&b. See the Vermont Yankee Maintenance Program. n 60 h a E -1
l ' Argument The response to this interrogatory is colorful but does not answer the questions; it is incomplete. The licensee should be compelled to provide a complete response to sub parts a and b. The reference to the
" Vermont Yankee Maintenance Program" is so vague as to be meaningless.
Interrogatory No. 77 Please describe in detail cach and every reason why Vermont Yankee asserts in its response to Vermont Interrogatory (Set No 1) No. 117 that it is " continually assessing industry initiatives that could further enhance the effectiveness of our programs." The description should include, but not be limited to, the following:
- a. Identification of each and every industry initiative that could further enhance Vermont Yankee's maintenance program;
- b. Identification of each and every document describing such industry initiatives; and
- c. The methodology Vermont Yankee uses to incorporate such industry initiatives in its decision making process.
Response
Vermont Yankee incorporates by reference its objection and response to Interrogatory No. 64, above. Ark .sent Please see the argument for Interrogatory No. 64 which also applies to this interrogatory. Vermont believes that the licensee can identify industry initiatives and their specific documentation which have enhanced or could enhance the effectiveness of its maintenance program. For example, the INPO documents requested in Vermont's Document Production. Request (Set No. 2) identify industry initiatives. Attachment A, " Industry Action Plan For Continued improvement in Maintenance of Nuclear Power Plants," in Vermont's " Motion to Compel Answers to 61
m , E
- k -
o ,, L Document Production Requests (Vermont Set No. 2)," July 5,1990, also : identifies industry initiatives. Vermont Yankee's claim that it cannot ; identify industry initiatives is contradicted by these facts and therefore is ,l evasive. The licensic should be compelled to provide a complete, , nonevasive response.
-?
4 Interrogatorv No. 85 ,
- q. ;
Please describe in detail each and every reason why Vermont 3
' Yankee asserts in item 10 (dated March 17, 1986) identified in its j response to Vermont Interrogatory (Set No.1). No. 79 that "the primer coat will provide adequate conosion protection as long as it is r e m:li ntained in good condition' The description should include, but not i be limited to, the followmg. :
- a. Identification of cach and every program and procedure for 'i i;
primer coat inspection and mamtenance; i 1
- b. Identification of each and every area of the drywell and torus that are continually contaminated and/ar wetted; ;
r
~
Identification of each and every area of the drywell and : c. torus that has no topcoat; j
- d. Identification of each and every document describing programs intended to maintain the primer coat in good .
i condition; and t
- c. Identification of the criteria Vermont Yankee uses to determine if the primer coat is in " good condition", 1
Response
So long as the primer coat covers the substrate, corrosion $ of the substrate surface will not occur. Please see YAEC 1696 and the attachments thereto,
- a. Plant Procedure OP 4115 is the document utilized to inspect the interior surfaces of the drywell and torus.
In addition, at each refueling outage, an engineering l inspection is made by YNSD engineers qualificd to ! assess the state of thes: interior surfaces. L 62 , 1
~. . _
++
94 u o* , L ; p
+ '
(: ,
- b. The only portion of the primary containment that is - j
', . continually wetted is the lower portion of the torus. !
1
- c. Areas of the drywell and torus that have no topcoat are identified in YAEC Report 1696, which has previously been provided to SOV. q
< d. - See the response to sub part (a) above. ;
i, 1
- c. See OP 4115.04.
Argument { The response to sub part e of this interrogatory is evasive and . - incomplete. OP 4115.04 has only the statements: g #1. Surfaces in good condition. \
- 2. No deformation, cracked welds or loose anchor- _;
points. { l
- 3. No debris in the Torus."
The statement " surfaces in good condition" is not criteria at all. l What criteria does the inspector use to determine whether the surface is in " good condition?" " Good condition" to one inspector will mean one l thing, to another inspector another thing. This lack of criteria is the , reason the surface was not scraped in the 1987 outage. Thus, the j licensee should be compelled to provide a proper response to sub part e by revealing its actual criteria or stating that it has-none. (See also the ' argument to Interrogatory No. 52.) Interrogatory No. 86 ; Does Vermont Yankee agree that "any continually contaminated : or wetted areas should have the Waterproof topcoat to prevent ; contamination or water from being absorbed:, as asserted in item 10 g identified in Vermont Yankee's response to Vermont Interrogatory (Set i No.1) No. 797 l if your answer is anything other than an unqualified affirmative-then please state every reason for your answer, and for each reason: . 63 4 t e , m,- , , - -- ~ , e -
po, q ,
'j 1 i, .
I o r-L l h ' 0' a. State each and every fact on which your reason is based;' l
\
Describe all of the evident t in Vermont Yankee's b,- ' c, possession or of which Vermont Yankee has knowledge that Vermont Yankee contends establishes each such fact; [ and j < r .. . r> c. For each reason, either provide the technical qualifications h (education, employment history, licenses and certificates,
. experience, or other information that Vermont Yankee q contends establishes the qualifications of the person), of '
L any person on whose expertise Vermont Yankee relies for L the reason or state that Vermont Yankee does not rely j upon the expertise of any person for the reason. p , Objection: : Vermont Yankee objects to this interrogatory on the j ground that it is not relevant to the admitted contention. q Response: , Without waiving the foregoing objection, but rather , L expressly relying upon the same, Vermont Yankee supplies the following information: M No, Vermont Yankee does not agree with this statement. 3 L 1
- a. All plant surfaces are considered with regard to their waterproof capability and decontaminability, as part ,
of Vermont Yankee's ongoing radiation control r program to minimize the potential for transport of 4-radioactive contamination. Ilowever, the drywell and w torus are areas that are not accessible during normal ; f operation, and are controlled contaminated areas .
$ when entry is permitted. Therefore, case of--
i decontaminability of drywell and torus interior surfaces is not of paramount importance. In addition, there is ao licensing basis that requires l t _ Vermont Yankee to maintain case of decontaminability on any surface--doing so is simply a matter of good housekeeping practices to maintain easily decontaminated surfaces in areas that are routinely accessible. t 64 1 a ,-- , , ,
t
- b. Decontamination practices are detailed in plant Itadiation Protection procedures.
- c. Radiation protection decisions are made by plant management personnel (qualifications previously provided).
4 Argument This response is incomplete and the licensee should be compelled to provide a complete response. The quoted statement from the item 10 of Interrogatory (Set No.1) No. 79 concerns " contamination or utet from being absorbed." The licensee's response describes " contamination" but not " water [] being absorbed." Water absorption is independently important because it leads to corrosion. The licensee should be compelled to answer the interrogatory with regard to water being absorbed. Interrogatory No. 89 Please state the qualifications and training, and provide the most current resume available, for the SWEC consultant, C. Ilansen, who prepared memorandum VYS 46/86, Drywell Paint, dated March 11, 1986.
Response
Please see the response to interrogatory (Set No.1) No.17. Argument The reference to Interrogatory (Set No.1) No. 77 does not provide Mr. llansen's training or his specific qualifications regarding the assessment of coating systems. The licensee should be compelled to provide this information. 65-i e
f"' e ,E i V - 41,
'. k '
y f
- Interronatory No. 92 '
s Does . Vermont' Yankee agree that "very little data is available , concerning transportation of paint fragments in a Mark I configuration" !' e as asserted in item 10 identified in its response to Vermont 6 Interrogatory (Set No.1) No. 797 If your answer is anything other than an unqualified affirmative, then please state every reason for your answer, and for each reason. . 1
- a. State each and every fact on which your reason is based; h
- b. ~ Describe all of the evidence in Vermon: Yankee's i
possession or of which Vermont Yankee has knowledge that Vermont Yankee contends establishes each such fact; j 4 and i v , c.- For each reason, either provide thd technical qualifications , (education, employment history, licenses and cerSficates-experience, or other information that Vermont Yankee contends establishes the qualifications of the person),-of any person on whose expertise Vermont Yankee relies for the reason or state that Vermont Yankee does not rely ; upon the expertise of any person for the reason. t
Response
This statement was true at'the time it was made, but 'n light of the subsequent Vermont Yankee evaluation of this isaue, , this statement is no longer valid. i
- a. This statement was made in a preliminary assessment, prior to the more detailed evaluation i that was performed in YAEC Report 1696, which summarized the amount of industry-wide data that i was available. This subsequent in depth evaluation utilized available data from insulation fragment transport physical testing (referenced in YAEC .
i Report 1696) and General Elec ..e methodology for Vermont Yankee for the resultant NPSI-I losses due l to insulation debris (also referenced in YAEC Report 1696), and, taking into account the ! similarities and differences between the available transport data for insulation debris and paint chip 66 5
~ v --
h m y<
'. >i
(- I E , l c , f L , E debris, establFhed a paint chip transport methodology. Thus the statement quoted in the - interrogatory was true at the time it was made but l has since been superseded by YAEC 1696. l
- b. The mote detailed evaluation referred to above is I documented in YAEC Report 1696, which was - !
O( previously been provided to SOV. ;
- c. Messrs. Hansen, Tremblay and Yasi, identified in the 3 response to Interrogatory (Set No.1) No. 77. j
(; ' ' Argument j This response is patently evasive in its presentation. The licensee j should be compelled to provide a nonevasive response. The only fact n provided to support the licensee's negative answer is reference to YAEC l
; Report 1696. Licensee's response is framed in terms of " insulation" l L' fragment or debris data. This is not " paint fragment" data. The only ,
DE fact provided to support the licensee's negative answer is reference to 3 YAEC Report 1696. This report contains reference to the General j Electric methodology and coritains a calculation of NPSil for " insulation
- debris only." It also contains certain nonconservative rationalizations (or
{ j wishes) regarding paint chip behavior, it does not contain " data ... j
- available conce aing transportation of paint fragments." As a matter of.
p , l [ fact._the statement quoted in Interrogatory No. 93 is from YAEC Report j 1696, and says no data is available. Vermont believes that this evasion l must be exposed and that the licensee should be compelled to provide a ; proper response. (See also the argument for Interrogatory No. 53.) ! O i j interrogatory No. 93 : b : Does Vermont Yankee agree that "there is no data available with
':v regard to paint chip transport or plugging of strainers by paint chips, '
6 with or without combination with insulation fibers: as asserted in item 18 identified in its response to Vermont' Interrogatory (Set No.1) No. 797 ! 1 / ={ if your answer is anything other than an unqualified affirmative, then please state every reason fo'r your answer, and for each reason: ,
- 67
h'
- a. State each and every fact on which your reason is based;
- b. Describe all of the evidence in Vermont Yankee's possession or of which Vermont Yankee has knowledge that Vermont Yankee contends establishes each such fact; and
- c. For each reason, either provide the technical qualifications (education, employment history, licenses and certificates, experience, or other information that Wnnont Yankee contends establishes the qualifications of the person), of any pert.on on whose expertise Vermont Yankee relles for the reason or state that Vermont Yankee does not rely upon the expertise of any person for the reason.
Response
No. Vermont Yankee does not entirely agree with this statement.
- a. Transport is discussed above in our response to Interrogatory 92. There is no physical testing data avaihtble on the effect of paint chips in plugging strainers utilizing a March I design, with or without combination with insulation fibers; however, this point is moot since YAEC 1696 shows that Vermont Yankee's ECCS pumps have sufficient NPSil margin above that required to accommodate the postulated fibrous insulation debris due to a design basis accident,
- b. NPSil available and NPSH margin are discussed in detail in YAEC Report 1696, which has previously been provided to SOV.
- c. Messrs. Hansen, Tremblay and Yasi, identified in the response to Interrogatory (Set No.1) No. 77.
- 68 7
g-a b b p p
}
Argument This response is also patently evasive and illogical. Since no data is available for blockage by paint chips in combination with insulation fibers, it is purported that a calculation which considers blockage by only L insulation fibers proves everything is all right. This contortien should-f not be left to stand; the licensee should be required to provide a complete and nonevasive response. p L4 . Interrogatory No. 94 Please state the qualifications and training, and provide the most L current resume available, for the SWEC consultant, R. L Martin, who prepared letter J.O. No.- 18973.00 Drywell and Torus Coatings Vermont . p Yankee Station Yankee Atomic electric Company, dated April 4,1989. p Response: l L Please see the response to Interrogatory (Set No.1), No. 75. Argument , The reference to Interrogatory (Set No.1) No. 75 does not b provide Mr. Martin's training or his specific qualifications regading the , assessment of coating systems. The licensee should be compelled to , [ . provide this information. ; c interrogatory No.101
- Stone & Webster's coating specialist asserts in item 13 identified in Vermont Yankee's response to Vermont Interrogatory (Set No.1) No.
79.that *In a DBA/LOCA event, the topcoat remaining on the surface
- may delaminate from the primer." Please describe in detail the
. significance of topcoat delamination and/or peeling'in terms of the
>' potential to degrade ECCS pump capability due to entrainment of paint fragments either alone or in combination with other potential debris.
I t E 69
="
4
i t I
Response
^
This sentence is taken out of context. If ole were to read the remainder of this reference, one would see that hir. hiartin was making a statement .of a potential problem, and then ; continues on to evaluate the problem statement and conclude that it in fact is not a problem with regard to ECCS pump operability. r The evaluation of the significance of topeoat failure is ' D discussed in detail in YAEC Report 1696, which,has previously ' been provided to SOV. Argument The response to this interrogatory is evasive. The licensee should be compelled to provide an unambiguous response. ; The licensee asserts that the quoted sentence is taken out of context -- it is not. The licensee claims if one reads all of hir. hiartin's
- letter one would find a conclusion that topcoat failure is not a problem '
with regard to ECCS pump operability - no such conclusion is found. ' In fact, hir. hiartin has two statements which might be conclusions, both at 4. The first, *liowever, actual prediction of the amount of topcoat that would be removed would require extensive dua gathering and testing," leaves only doubt. The second, " Vermont Yankee's decision to not reapply topcoat materials over the inorganic - zine primer is appropriate," relates to future actions. hir. hiartin makes other conclusion than the one stated in the interrogatory regarding the -
"as found" delamination of topcoat and its effect on ECCS pump.
operability. Vermont Yankee's reference to YAEC Report 1696 is similarly flawed. Eight " qualitative" rationalizations are provided to justify the lack of what hir. hiartin identifies as " extensive data gathering and testing." The licensee claims these rationalizations also justify its actions of continued operation without reapplication of the topcoat. However, Vermont Yankee nowhere in YAEC Report 1696 evaluates . . the "as-found" delamination of topcoat and its effect on ECCS pump operability. Indeed, rationalization No. 7 states, in part (at 16):
"During the present refueling outage at Vermont Yankee (hiarch,1989), loose topcoat in the upper drywell and the 70 ,
L torus air space was removed with metal scrapers.
> Inspection of the surfaces by YNSD and Vermont Yankee engineers reveals that this effort was highly successful in i removing essentially all loosely adhering topcoat." ,
in other words, the licensee's justification for acceptability rely on the drywell nel being in the "as found" condition. The result is that specialist Mr. Martin and Vermont Yankee have i never stated their conclusiom regarding the "as found" delamination of the drywell and its effect on ECCS pump operability. This information is sought by thls interrogatory, and material referenced by the response 17 does not provide it. The licensee should be compelled to respond with this information, i
-Interronaton> No.103 7
Stone & Webster's coating specialist asserts in item 13 identified in Vermont Yankee's response to Vermont Interrogatory (Set No.1) No. , 79 that "a break in the coolant recirculation piping in the lower portion ; L uf the drywell may not remove large amounts of topcoat by , e impingement." Please describe in detail the bases for that assertion, including, but not to be limited to, the following:
~
- a. Each and every fact upon which the assertion is based; ,
- b. All evidence in Vermont Yankee's possession or of which Vermont Yankee has knowledge that Vermont Yankee believes establishes each such fact;
- c. For each reason, either provide the technical qualifications (education, employment history, licenses and certificates, experience, or other information that Vermont Yankee r i contends establishes the qualificationi of the person), or any person on whose expertise Vermont Yankee relies for the reason or state that Vermont Yankee does not rely ,
upon the expertise of any person for the reasori; and
- d. The signuance of loosening "large araounts" of topcoat and fiberglass insulation during a DBA LOCA in terms of the potential to degrade ECCS pump capability due to l
entrainment of pain fragments and other debris. 71 i
p
~
g, > t
-r
. i
.+
Responset !
- a. The basis for this assertion is found in the same ..
paragraph of the same reference that this quote wr.s .] taken from. j
- b. See evaluation in YAEC Report 1696, which 1 provides the references used to perform this i evaluation. YAEC Report 1696 has been previously !
provided to SOV.,
- c. Messrs.1lansen, Tremblay and Yasi, identified in the- l response to Interrogatory (Set No.1) No. 77. ,
- d. The significance of loosening."large amounts" of j
topcoat and fiberglass insulation during DBA LOCA J in terms of the potential to degrade ECCS pump , operability due to entrainment of paint fragments j and other debris had not been evaluated, since ; General Electric evaluated in detail for Vermont J
~!
Yankee the amount of fiberglass debris that would
, conservatively be produced from this event. 1 (Reference 1 from YAEC Report 1696), and because l large amounts of topcoat failure have been evaluated .i not to occur due to the reasons stated in YAEC !
Report 1696. Thus, evaluation of a condition of "large amounts" of loosened topcoat and fiberglass insulation during a DBA.LOCA would not be , applicable to Vermont Yankee. l Argument
- Sub part d of this interrogatory suffers from the same evasion as t Interrogatory No.101. The evasion is revealed by the statement in the ;,
l response, "large amounts of topcoat failure have been evaluated not to . ! I occur due to reasons stated in YAEC Report 1696." As stated in the foregoing argument, YAEC Report 1696 does not evaluate the "e found" state of topcoat delamination. The significance of the "as found" topcoat delamination and its effect, in combination with NUKON insulation, on ECCS pump operability is sought by sub part d. The [ L licensee should be compelled to provide this information. ;c l 72
y ,, j k 6' , f u . ( x i i [' interrogatory No.104 l l
. Stone & Webster's coating specialist asserts in item 13 identified :
in Vermont _ Yankee's response to Vermont Interrogatory (Set No.1) No. i m 79 that
- failure of the topcoat in the upper section of the drywell was i
,' related, in part, to thermal aging by long term exposure to elevated r temperatures (approximately 180 200 F)." l r a. - Please describe in detail cach and every reason why failure I
. of the topcoat was related, in part, to thermal aging by ' :
long term exposure to elevated temperatures; i
- b. Describe each and every reason for the elevated temperatures; .;
e, Identify each and every document that, describes the elevated temperatures; -t
- d. Please describe in detail all evidence either in Vermont !
Yankee's possession or of which Vermont-Yankee has knowledge that Vermont Yankee believes identifies topcoat , failure mech <misms; and i
- c. Identify each and every component and/or structure that ,
may be affected by thermal aging due to elevated drywell temperatures.
- Responset l
Thermal aging of coatings is an established failure a.- -i l-K mechanism of coatings. It is Mr. Martin's opinion a due to physical inspection that failure of the topcoat ; in the upper drywell is thermally induced. This ; t opinion is based on observed drywell topcoat ' conditions, i.e., darkened color (compared to the ' topcoat below the spray ring), brittleness, cracking, and loss of adhesion, in the area above the spray 1
- ring, which are indications of thermal aging of the-topcoat,
- b. The term "clevated temperatures" as it is used in the ' s reference document refers to a comparison of the
- mean temperature in the upper drywell and the ,
73 i
e mean temperature in the lower drywell.
- Elevated temperature" in the upper drywell does not mean that temperatures in the drywell are above design conditions or are abnormally high, contrary to the implicit assumption of this sub part of the interrogatory. The upper drywell historically has always been at a higher temperature than the lower drywell, due to the configuration of the Mark I containment, and the fact that a nuclear reactor is located in it,
- c. Please see the response to sub part b, above.
- d. The only document that addresses topcoat failure mechanisms is the SWEC report referenced in this interrogatory, which is an enclosure to YAEC Report 1696 and which has previously t een provided to SOV.
- e. Please see the response to sub part b, above.
Argument Lictmsee's responses to sub parts e and e do not answer the questions that were asked, rmd as such, the licensee should be compelled
- to piovide additional responses.
Interrogatory No.105 Please describe in detail each and every reason why Stone &- Webster's coating specialist asserts in Itcm 13 identified in Vermont Yankee's response to Vermont Interrogatory (Set No.1) No. 79 that the coating failure mechanism caused by condensation "can be controlled with' regular maintenance." Please describe in detail the basis for that assertion, including, but not limited to the following: 1
- a. Each and every fact upon which the assertion is based;
- b. All evidence in Vermont Yankee's possession or of which Vermont Yankee has knowledge that Vermont Yankee believes establishes each such fact; and
- c. Each and every regular maintenance activ.ty performed ont he zine primer.
74 I l
y c I
Response
! a. The localized coating degradation caused by a
condensation can be monitored with periodic (e.g., every refueling outage) inspections. Those areas requiring coating repair can be identified during the 1 g inspections for immediate action. ,
- b. The document referenced in this interrogatory establishes this fact.
- c. Regular maintenance of the coatings is conducted in accordance with plant procedure AP 0021.
Argument The response is wholly inadequate and does not address the . problem. In the referenced document, at 5, it is stated:
" Exposure of the inorganic zine primer to the moist ', ambient conditions within the torus and drywell will cause -
oxidation of the zine in the coating. Condensation rivulets on the surface will cause depletion along their path that over time will result in corrosion of the underlying steel. - This coating failure mechanism is predictable and can be controlled with regular maintenance." The aspect of the " coating failure mechanism" relevant to this proceeding is the " corrosion of the underlying steel." For this i proceeding, any discussion of cori rolling the coating failure mechanism must include an assessment of the corrosion of the steel and its effects through the extended period (especially since such failure mechanism is ,
" predictable"). Thus the response should include facts and evidence <
related to how the effects of the coating failure mechanism are controlled, licensee should be compelled to provide this response. Interrocatory No.109 Stone & Webster's coating specialist asserts in item 13 identified in Vermont Yankee's response to Vermont Interrogatory (Set No.1) No. . 79 that the " decontamination process will remove some of the zinc j coating thickness." Please state: . 75 l
I
- a. The significance of removim; some of the zine coating thicknesst
- b. The minimum allowable zine coating thickness and the criteria for that minimum;
- c. The date, based on the current zine coating thickness and estimated future zine coating thinning from each and every cause, when generalized repair and/or replacement of the zine coating will be required; and
- d. The sufficiency of zine coating for the extended period.
Response
- a. The significance of removing some of the inorganic zine coating thickness during decontamination activities would require assessment at the time of the decontamination. Assessment.would be based on factors such as: remaining coating thickness; physical condition of the remaining coating and expected service conditions for the coating following decontamination. Related maintenance, modification, and operational activities that could affect the remaining coating or the intended service conditions of the coating also would be included in the assessment.
- b. There is no established minimum allowable zinc coating thickness. Nominal thicknesses are stated in previously discussed coating specifications. See YAEC 1696.
1
- c. No such date has been established.
- d. As stated in the final report of the Stone & Webster coating specialist, the exposed zine primer provides adequate corrosion protection for the inside surfaces of the containment. The recommended long term approach was to continue the current short term approach, which includes removal of loose topcoat, allowing the primer to remain un topcoated, and to make touch up repairs to the primer in locations 76
r: .
-f, y
3 i:; , where the primer may become damaged or where sporadic corrosion has occurred. This approach
' 'would hold true for the extended period as well.
l Argument The licensee's responses to sub carts e and d are greatly evasive. _ 1 Sub part e does not ask whether a dat , ' established; it asks when the h date would be. Sub part d involves a comparison of the date l p determined in sub part c with the proposed new license termination date. ~l r.
~
' Licensee can not take a head in the sand approach to its t consultant's statement that each time the liner is decontaminated, the '
]
primer thickness is decreased. While it may bc characteristic of its maintenanee program an1 to make such determination (11, relying on , corrective maintenance instead of preventlee maintenance), nevertheless ! the claims of this proceeding make it necesstey. If_ the containment - , coating is not stable and an operating license catension is requested, it is reasonable (and necessary) to determine if the containment coating will i last that long. For these reasons the licensee should be compelled to determine the date requested in sub part e and-the comparison clicited in sub-part d. l 4 Interrogatory No.115 , please describe in detail cach and every reason why Vermont _ Yankee asserts in item 18 identified in its response to . Vermont 1 Interrogatory (Set No.1) No. 79 that " insulation fibers would be more ' L apt to remain in suspension in the torus and be swept onto an ECCS l Intake screen than would paint chips." The description should include, , but not be limited to, identification of the.following' l
- a. Each and every fact upon which your statement is based;- ,
L> and ,
- b. All evidence in Vermont Yankee's possession or of which Vermont Yankee has knowledge that Vermont Yankee believes establishes each such fact.
77 t I
-5i
Response
- The reasons, facts and evidence on which the statement is based are contained in YAEC 1696, and the technical qualifications of those individuals involved in the subject evaluation effort have previously been provicic:1 to SOV.
Argument The interrogatory requests all facts and evidence related to the quoted statement. While reference to the report may be adequate, the licensee should be required to supplement this interrogatory with any additional facts or evidence it intends to use as testimony. The licensee's reference to YAEC Report 1696 relies upon the following fact (at 12):
"[T]he paint chips have a higher density than water. The paint chips were dropped into a basis of water and, upon breaking the surface tension, they immediately sank."
While these may be the reasons "why Vermont Yankee asserts" the quoted statement, Vermont notes the statement apparently does not consider paint chips whose surface area allows floatation, and paint chips which remain on the surface because of surface tension. Vermont believes the licensee should be compelled to address this discrepancy. Interrogatory No.116 Please describe in detail each and every reason why Vermont Yankee asserts in item 18 identified in its response to Vermont interrogatory (Set No.1) No. 79 that "the probability of significant paint transport to the torus in the first 30 seconds is very low." The description should include, but not be limited to, identification of the following:
- a. Each and every fact upon which your statement is based; and
- b. All evidence in Vermont Yankee's possession or of which Vermont Yankee has knowledge that Vermont Yankee believes establishes each such fact.
78
smM--,-,.----__._s_ _ ___ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ , _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ , _ _ _
L q-
'T :
f Resp (mse: The reasons, facts and evidence on which the statement is based are contained in YAEC 1696, and the technical qualifications of those individuals involved in the subject evaluation effort have previously been provided to SOV. Argument The interrugatory requests all facts and evidence related to the quoted statement. While reference to the report may be adequate, the licensee should be required to supplement this interrogatory with any additional facts or evidence it intends to use as testimony. The complete operative statement from YAEC Report 1696 (at .
- 13) is:
"[T]he probability of significant paint trans;> ort to the torus-in the first 30 seconds is very low due to the fact that the area of decraded paint is the upper portion of the drvwell
~
and out of the flo'w path." (eniphasis added)- While these may be the reasons "why Vermont Yankee asserts" the quoted statement, Vermont notes the statement apparently does not consider LOCAs caused by a steam or feedwater line break which occurs in the upper portion of the drywell, or a recirculation line break LOCA with break flow directed toward the upper portion of containment. Vermont believes the licensee should be compelled to address this discrepancy. 1 Intermgatory No.117 7 Please describe in detail cach and every reason why Vermont
'3 Yankee asserts in item 18 identified in its response to Vermont interrogatory (Set No.1) No. 79 that
- paint chips would not be within the high velocity LOCA flow stream, it would be expected that the majority 'of failed paint chips would remain on the drywell floor" The description should il clude, but not be limited to, identification of the following:
./
79
'1h'.'l' '. . .. .--a. -
L i.
- a. Each and every fact upon which your statement is based; anu
- b. All evidence in Vermord Yankee's possession or of which Vermont Yankee has knowledge that Vermont Yankee believes establishes each such fact;
- c. Each and every documentation of estimates of the amount loose paint and other debris currently in the drywell and/or torus; and
- d. Each and every documentation of estimates of the amount loose paint and other debris that will be generated int he drywell and/or torus during the extended period.
Response
The answers to these questions are discussed in detail in YAEC Report 1696, which has previously been provided to SOV. Argument The interrogatory requests all facts and evidence related to the quoted statement. This reference to the report appears not to be adequate, since Vermont can find no reasons, facts or evidence in the report for the quoted statement, in addition, YAEC Report 1696 clearly does nat answer sub parts e and d. Therefore, the licensee should be compelled to provide a complete response to the interrogatory. Interrocatory No.118 Please describe in detail each and every reason why Vermont Yankee asserts in item 18 identified in its response to Vermont Interrogatory (Set No. 'l) No. 79 that "A pipe break in either region could result in significant debris from either fibrous insulation damage, or the dislodging of a quantity of loose paint from the upper drywell, but not in both." The description should include, but not be limited to, identification of the following: 80
- a. Each and everf actf upon which your statement is based; and
- b. All evidence in Vermont Yankee's possession or of which Vermont Yankee has knowledge that Vermont Yankee believes establishes each such fact.
Response
The answers to these questions are discussed in detail in YAEC Report 1696, which has previously been provided to SOV. Argument The interrogatory requests all facts and evidence related to the quoted statement. While reference to the report may be adequate, the licensee should be required to supplement this inteirogatory with any additional facts or evidence it intends to use as testimony. While these may be the reasons "why Vermont Yankee asserts" the quoted statement, Vermont notes the statement apparently does not consider a LOCA caused by a recirculation line break LOCA with break flow directed toward the upper portion of containment. Vermont believes the licensee should be compelled to address this discrepancy. Interrocatory No.129 Please describe in detail cach and every reason why Vermont Yankee asserts in item 18 identified in its response to Vermont interrogatory (Set No.1) No. 79 that "as long as essentially all loosely adhering topcoat is removed by the start of the operating cycle...it would be rersonable to assume that most of the remaining topeoat would remain intact long after the first 30 second into LOCA." The description should include, but not be limited to, identification of-the following:
- a. Each and every fact upon which your statement is based; ty.d
- b. All evidence in Vermont Yankee's possession or of which Vermont Yankee has knowledge that Vermont Yankee believes establishes each such fact; and 81 1
C e t-t t
- c. Either the technical qualifications (education, employment i history, licenses and certificates, experience, or other information that Vermont Yankee contends establishes the qualifications of the person), or any person on whose ,
expertise Vermont Yankee relics for the reason or state
, that Vermont Yankee does not rely on the expertise of any person for the reason. ,
Response: ; The answer to this interrogatory is contained in detail in ' YAEC Report 1696, which has previously been provided to SOV. Argument The interrogatory requests all facts and evidence related to the quoted statement. This reference to the report appears not to be- . adequate, since Vermont can find no reasons, facts or evidence in the report for the quoted statement. Specifically, the report does not , indicate why, if "all loosely adhering topcoat is removed by the start of the operating cycle," that " topcoat would remain intact" if a LOCA l occurred at the end of the operating cycle when there was loosely l adhering topcoat present again. Furthermore, the report contains no
- reasons why "it would be reasonable to assume most of the remaining topcoat would remain intact long after the first 30 seconds into LOCA."
l Therefore, the reference does not provide the requested information and , the licensee should be compelled to provide a complete response to the interrogatory. l interrogatmv No.121 Vermont Yankee asserts in Item 18 identified in its response to
-Vermont Interrogatory (Set No.1) No. 79 that the RHR cnd core spray pumps have a " clean screen NPSil margin." Please describe in detail the NPSil margin that would exist based on current ECCS strainer cleanness and the postulated ECCS strainer blockage caused by insulation, paint chips and other debris.
82 f
W E y p. r u I 4 yt ts L': t
'\
Response
, f No such calculation has been performed, because, for the !
reasons set forth above (see the response to Interrogatory No i 119), debris from fibrous' insulation and debris from paint chips in ! material iuantity l are not additive. In addition, in order to make ;
, " any such calculation, SOV would have to provide specifications for i "other debris," as Vermont Yankee has been unable to hypothesize any other debris that would be produced by the j accident scenarios analyzed. j Argument ,
Licensee has not provided an answer to the question asked. -! 4 Vermont asks for a NPSil margin considering blockage by insulation, , paint cliips and other debris (see the argument for Interrogatory 53). ! The licensee here'is purposefully evasive, it claims no such calculation l has been performed. Vermont believes such a calculation must be l performed,' and must use conservative assumptions. Vermont is, and this l Board should be, unconvinced by the rationalizations of YAEC Report l' 1696. Either data should be developed to determine the paint chip / insulation interaction, or conservative, bounding assumptions made. { Vermont believes when this is done, insufficient NPSH will be shown to : have been present in the "as found" containment condition of 1989. If this is the result, it means the topcoat of the containraent was not maintained in a manner such that it was determined and replaced before found to have aged to'n point where safety standards are not met. For these reasons, Vermont Yankee should be compelled to
' describe the nSH margin with appropriately conservative assumptions - # as' requested.
Interrogatory No.126 Please define the phrase " fundamental changes" as it is used by . Vermont Yankee in its response to Vermont Interrogatory (Set No. -2)- No.3.
'l 1
I 83
. s .
N$ - - - , . - .
u pm-- 4 1 ) 4 L a: > m 9 Response: The phrase " fundamental changes" was used with its ordinary English meaning.
- Argument The Board should reject this cavalier response and compel the L
licensee to provide' a proper response. Vermont has noted that the ? licensee appears to have overhauled the entire manner in which it does maintenance. AP 0021 (" Maintenance Requests"), Rev.17, is a complete revision which completely revamps the maintenance request system, the methods for preventive maintenance and the post maintenance testing
- method. The vendor manual system is completely changed by AP 0312
(" Equipment Technical Information"). AP 0200 (" Conduct of Maintenance Activities"), Rev.12 is a complete revision. The "3M" system will completely revise maintenance record keeping. Yet, having made all these changes, the licensee claims there is no need for fundamental changes to its maintenance program for the extended period. Since the licensee is a regulated utility which cannot engage in-changes which are not necessary, Vermont believes this is a usage of
" fundamental" different from " ordinary English" and therefore requests the Board to compel the licensee to tell what it means by " fundamental changes."
I Interrocaton No.127 Please define the phrase " discrete changes" as it is used by Vermont Yankee in its response to Vermont Interrogatory (Set No. 2) No.3.
Response
The clause "no discrete changes or additions to the existing-maintenance capacity were required to account separately for the extended operating period" was used with its ordinary English meaning. , 84
l 6
%rument For '.ae reasons stated in the foregoing argument, the licensee r
should be compelled to explain what it means by " discrete changes." Interrogatory No.128 r Please describe in detail the meaning of the phrase "to account separately" as is used by Vermont Yankee in its response to Vermont Interrogatory (Set No. 2) No. 3. I'
Response
The clause "no discrete changes or additions to the existing maintenance capacity were required to account separately for the extended operating period" was used with its ordinary English meaning. Argument For the reasons stated in the argument for Interrogatory No.126, i the licensee should be compelled to explain what it means by " account separately." . Interrogatory No.129 Does Vermont iankee consider P.evision No.17 of Ap 0021 (6/1/90), in which the entire system of processing and controlling preventive and corrective maintenance requests is changed, to be a fundamental change to the methods of its maintenance program? If your answer is anything other than an unqualified affirmative, then please state every reason for your answer and for each reason, please: L
- a. State each and every fact on which your reason is based; 1-
- b. Describe all of the evidence in Vermont Yankee's possession or of which Vermont Yankee has knowledge ,
that Vermont Yankee contends establishes each such fact; and 85
m 5 F i> j- c.- For each reason, either provide the technical qualifications (education, employment history, licenses and certificates, experience, or other information that Vermont Yankee ! contends establishes the qualifications of the person), of L any person on whose expertise Vermont Yankee relies for the reason or state that Vermont Yankee does not rely on the expertise of any person for the reason. Objection: E Vermont Yankee objects to this interrogatory on the ground that it is not relevant to the admitted contention. Response:- Without waiving the foregoing objection, but rather expressly relying upon the same, Vermont Yankee offers the-following information: It is not a fundamental change in either the mission of the maintenance program or the methods by which that mission is accomplished, as the phrase was used in the context in which it was used. It is, rather, an evolutionary enhancemem to the maintenance program, the implementation of which was and is unconnected to the prospect of continued operation in the period 2007 to 2012. Argument Since "a rose by any other name is still a rose," the Board should disallow the use of licensee's nuclear-eze, " enhancement," tmd compel Vermont Yankee to provide a simple "yes" answer. The chemge noted
- anpears to be a complete and fundamental char.g- in "the methods by which that mission is accomplished."
Interrogatory No.144 : State all the safety standards that Vermont: Yankee asserts are applicable to the resolution of this proceeding. 86
p . . [
)
..[s 4
m
Response
q None. Vermont Yankee believes that the legal standard by which the soproval or disapproval of this application should be made is contr'aed in 10 C F.R. 6 50.92, which in turn incorporates the legal Atandards applicable to an original operating license to the extent that such standards are impliceted by the proposed change-in the license in question. 'li.s legal standards applicable to the grant of an operating license are, in the first instance, stated in 10 C.F.R, 6 50.57(a), plus such other sections of the regulation as may be incorporated by reference therein. Section 50.57(a) contains 6 numbered subsections, of which 1-2 and 4-6 are topically not implicated by the proposed operating amendment, perned by the findinp5 of the Commission in connection with N original grant of the Vermont Yankee operating license, and 4 inerefore need not and may not be reconsidered in connection with this proceeding. The remaining subsection (10 C.F.R. 6
-50.57(a)(3) contains two subsections, to wit:
That there is reasonable assurance that the activities authorized by the operating license can be conducted without undue risk to the health and safety of the public. and That there is reasonable assurance that the ' activities authorized by the operating license ' will be ' conducted in accordance with the regulations of this chapter. r As to the first, the activities authorized by the operating license, as amended, is the continuance of the operation of
, VYNPS that has already been authorized, upon a finding that it can be conducted without undue risk to the health '
and safety of the public, through the year 2007 and that has already been conducted since 1972. In the absence of some change in the operations, or other physical constraint that would make such additional operation not capable of being conducted without such undue risk-of which we know
, of none and of which none has been included within the 87
+
% J w . - - - - - - - . . .
u 9 t
.r scope of any admitted contention in this proceeding--this'-
finding, too, need not and niay not be reconsidered in connection with this proceeding.
-As to the second, assessment of this legal standard 3-logically and legally _ impossible absent identification of some other Commission promulgated regulation that, ex hypothesi, will not be followed in the future. -In the context of the admitted contention in this proceeding, SOV has not identified any other Commission regulation that establishes programmatic minima for the maintenance function and we are (i) not aware of any and (ii) aware that the Commission is of the view that it has not yet promulgated any Consequently, while ! 50.57(a)(3)(ii) might be implicated given a reason to believe that operation in the post 2007 period would not be conducted in accordance with some identifiable Commission regulation by an operating license amendment application seeking no other
, change in a license but expiration date, in this case it is not implicated because the subject of the contention is not also the subject of such a regulation.
- Please note that the two components of 10 C.F.R. 6
-50.57(a)(3) are asymmetrical. The absence of a promulgated regulation authoritatively resolving any debate on some technical parameter (for instance, containment wall thickness) leaves a residuum for contention (under 10 C.F.R. 5 50.57(a)(3)(i) that, absent a contended-for characteristic (such as four-foot thick containment walls),
the facility is not capable ~of being operated without such undue risk. With respect to programmatic operational considerations that are the subject of f 50.57(a)(3)(ll), however, the regulation does not afford a corresponding residuum of authority to litigate the necessity of as-yet-unestablished (by the Commission) requirements. Vermont
-Yankee believes, given the words chosen by the ,
Commission, that this asymmetry was intentional. As Vermont Yankee understands SOV's Contention Vil, it is based on the assumption that c condition precedent'to the approval of the pending operating license amendment is a finding by the Commission or its tribunal that: 88 r'_
1 "That there is reasonable-
- assurance that the activities authorized by the operating
. -license will be conducted without
= undue risk to the health and -
safety _of the public," that is to say, a' finding constructed by assembling the
. subject and . verb of 10 C.F.R. 5 50.57(a)(3)(ii)~ to the object of 10 C.F.R. 5 50.57(a)(3)(i). (See, inter alia, the very next interrogatory.) . Vermont Yankee believes that such a
> contention does violence to the grammar and logic of the regulation _as promulgated. Vermont Yankee believes that, if the Commission had intended a requirement, it would not have promulgated 6 50.57(a)(3)(ii) in the form in which ,
it did. Vermont Yankee therefore believes that no such finding need be made. Prescinding from the foregoing, were the adequacy of a program, such as the maintenance program, a litigable topic (given a cognizable, duly-promulgated regulatory standard), Vermont Yankee believes that the methodology
.for assessing whether there is reasonable assurance that the program conforms to the standard consists of an analytical comparison of the program to the standards, together with
- the commitments (if any) of the operator to' comply with -
the Commission's regulations as from time to time-promulgated, amended and authoritatively interpreted.
' Argument
-The licensee's response to this interrogatory is patently evasive.
- Interrogatory No.144 is not complex. Admitted Contention Vil has the phrase, " aged to a point where they [ccmponents] no longer meet the safety standards applicable to this ph.at" (emphasis added) All Vermont ,
. seeks is that which the licensee believes to be the " safety stradards"
[ applicable to the plant.' - y 3 Vermont responded to the licensee's Interrogatory (Set No.1) No. 2 on the same subject that the " safety standards" applicable to the plant means the " current licensing basis." The licensee in argument in its motion to-compel on this interrogatory (at 6) states: 89
. 1 F
I Instead Vermont. Yankee supplies this diatribe which has been
- , " argued and overruled no less that three times before. The licensee made this argument at the admission stage of contentions and was overruled by admission of Contention Vll. The licensee again made this ,
argument in its untimely " Reply of Vermont Yankee to State of Vermont's Answer in Opposition to Motion to Compel and Motion for Leave to File the Same,"(May 16,1990, at 12 and note 2) and was overruled again by this 130ard:
"We note in passing, however, that, as we previously observed, we do nc agree with the Licensee's. position that, if [ Vermont] does nat contend that the maintenance program violates either a regulation or a technical specification, the contention must be dismissed for lack of a regulatory basis." (Memorandum and Order, May 24, 1990, -
at 9 and note 5), The licensee made this argument a third time in its " Motion to Compel
- Answers to Interrogatories (VYNPC Set No. 2)," (May 7,1990, at 26:
and note 5), and was for a third time overruled by the Board:
" Safety standards are those things - typically provisions of-the Commission's regulations or the plant's Technical
' Specifications - that would tv cited in a notice of violation."
. This Board ruled in part:
"We note that, if the State believes that a licensing basis constitutes a safety standard, as the term is used in the _
contention, .it is uee to take that position, even though that definition tr+ not be appropriate in terms of the merits of the claim." (Memorandum and Order. May 24,1990, at 9, notation omitted). Given this discovery history, Vermont believes it is crucial to-know the safety standards that the licensee will advance as applicable to this proceeding. 90
n f m
.y "Indeed, as suggested by- the State, we find somewhat disconcerting, if not entirely frivolous, the Licensee's attempt to belittle the reasonable assurance requirement of 10 C.F.R. s 50.57(a)(3) through denomination as a " residual
. requirement." (Memorandum and Order. July 20,1990, at :
19 and note 2). Vermont believes it is now time for the 130ard's patience to end regarding this repetitive argument. The licensee shotdd be compelled to provide a proper response to Interrogatory 144 and instructed to quit this repetitive argument. l Interrogatory No.145 Describe in detail the methodology that Vermont Yankee asserts will demonstrate that there is reasonable assurance that its maintenance program will provide adequate protection to the public health and safety in the extended period.
Response
As and for the reasons set ferth in the response to .l foregoing interrogatory, Vermont Yankee does not believe that such a finding has to be made, and consequently it is not i prepared to state a position on the methodology by which such a - l finding would be made, were such a finding to be made. To the 1
. contrary, Vermont Yankee has sought, repeatedly but without ,
success, to elicit from SOV the methodology by which such a finding-(or its negative) might be made, and SOV has also been unable to answer the question. 3 Argument This response relies on the foregoing response and is completely evasive for the same reasons as that response. The licensee has burdened Vermont with this question in Interrogatory (Set No.1) No. 2 - its accompanying. motion-to-compel, Interrogatory (Set No. 3) No. 8, and: Interrogatory (Set No. 4) No. 27 and its accompanying motion to-compel. " Now, the licensee states it will not reveal its case because it "does not - believe'such a finding has to be made."' The licensee should be compelled to accept the reality that it hears the burden to demonstrate 91 l l
O [' f, , i I that there is reasonable assurance that its maintenance program will provide adequate protection to the public health and safety in the extended period; the licensee should be compelled to provide a proper + response to this interrogatory. . laltTEDgatory No.146 f Please provide each and every reason why MR 90-0178, initiated on Januay 22,1990,'was presented to Vermont in discovery on form VYAPF 0021.01, APl0021 Rev.17, which did not go into effect until' June 1,1990. Objection: Vermont Yankee objects to this interrogatory on the ground that it is not relevant to the admitted contention. Argument Contention VII concerns the adequacy of the maintenance program. This interrogatory concerns MR 90-0178 which is recorded on forms that did not go into effect until five months after the MR was supposed to be initiated. Obviously there is some irregularity here ; which could indicate a maintenance inadequacy and certainly which begs an explanation. Thus the interrogatory is relevant and the objection should be overruled. The licensee should be compelled to provide a complete response,, Interrocatory No.147 Please identify each and every maintenance request before June 1, 1990, which has been processed with form VYAPF 0021.01, AP 0021
--Rev 17. ,
n Objectiom Vermont Yankee objects to this interrogatory on the , ground that it is not relevant to the admitted contention. 92
' 'uu I h lIl g
r Argument The objection to this interrogatory should be overruled.for the
- reasons stated in the foregoing argument. The licensee should be compelled to provide a complete response, e
Interroentory No.148 Please describe in detail each and every reason why Vermont Yankee Audits VY-88-% and VY 89 06A did not uncover the maintenance discrepancies or weaknesses described in Westec, Inc.'s SSFI - findings, LRS Reports (as stated in sub part j to Contention VII) or the NRC-Maintenance Team Report. For each such reason, please:
- a. State cach and every fact on which your reason is based;
- b. Describe all of the evidence in Vermont Yankee's possession or of which Vermont Yankee has knowledge that Vermont Yankee contends establishes each such fact; and
- c. For each reason, either provide the technical qualifications (education, employment history, licenses and certificates, experience, or other information that Vermont Yankee contends establishes the qualifications of the person), of any person on whose expertise _ Vermont Yankee relles for the reason or state that Vermont Yankee does not rely upon the expertise of any person for the reason.
Objections: Vermont Yankee objects to this interrogatory on the ground that it is not relevant to the admitted contention. Argument This interrogatory is relevant on two counts. First, quality assurance associated with maintenance is a part of the definition of maintenance program which is the subject of Contention Vil (the
. licensee's limited definition of maintenance should be rejected).
j Secondly, the interrogatory concerns information related to inadequacies in the maintenance program which is also the subject of Contention Vll. Therefore the objection should be overruled and the licensee should be
-compelled to provide a complete response.
93
W
- (
u-1 Interrogatory No.149-
;In response to Vermont's request for documents No. 23, dated 1
. June 19,1990, Vermont Yankee provided form VYOPF 4115.04, Rev g 18., Visual Inspection of Primary Containment Surfaces Data-Sheet, -
i' ' dated September 29,1987. That form indicates "some paint scaling _ t above the upper spray ring header." Stone & Webster's coating . l specialist asserts in item 13 identified in Vermont Yankee's response to-Vermont Interrogatory (Set No.1) No. -79 that "According to Yankee'
~ Atomic personnel, the loose coating had been scraped off the walls two
. outages prior to the inspection but not during the last outage." Did Vermont Yankee remove all loose topcoat during the 1987 outage?
If your answer is anything other than an unqualified affirmative,- 4 then please state every reason for your answer, and for each reason:
- a. State cach and every fact on which your reason is based;
- b. Describe all of the evidence in Vermont Yankee's possession or of which Vermont Yankee has knowledge that Vermont Yankee contends establishes each such fact;
- c. ' Identify each and every documentation of Vermont ;
Yankee's paint scaling evaluation (s) donc as a result of inspection (s) in 1987; and -
- d. Describe in detail each and every acceptance criteria for visual inspection of primary containment surfaces.
Response
a No.
- a. Vermont Yankee did not remove paint from the drywell during the 1987 outage. This fact is ~
established by the very information the SOV cites in
- ' this interrogatory (completed form 4115.04).
t b. See the response to subpart a. 3 c, See the response to subpart a. 1 94 i
myw '
. s /. ,
W y; < g "i U L; d.- 'The formal acceptance criteria for drywell inspection ] is contained in OP 4115. It must be recognized that , the drywell inspection and closcout is performed by " an experienced individual within the operations. department. Argument - The licensee should be compelled to provide a proper response to q
~
sub part d.of this inteirogatory for the reasons stated in arguments fo. a Interrogatories 52 and 85e. Vermont notes that the so called acceptance criteria'on the 1987 version of Form OP 4115.04 was " surfaces in good condition (no rust)." This lack of real acceptance criteria resulted in not . ; removing the loose paint from the drywell surface in 1987. Interrogatory No.153 In response to Vermonts request for documents, Vermont Yankee . provided the .Visirecord preventive maintenance system form S-801, , Preventive Maintenance. Work Order, for 16" NBS check valves V2 27A, 28A. 28B and 96A. ' That form requires "stilman seal replacement at the end of every cycle." Please state every reason for this requirement, imd cfor each reason:
- a. State each and every fact on which your reason is based;.
and t
- b. - Describe all of the evidence in Vermont Yankee's possession or of which Vermont Yankee has knowledge that Vermont Yankee contends establishes each such fact.
Objectiom Vermont Yankee objects to this interrogatory on the ground that it is not relevant to the admitted contention. .
' Argument The objection should be overruled for the reasons stated in the . ,
argument for Interrogatory No. 4. This interrogatory is part of the O ' investigation of the failure of the maintenance program to maintain containment integrity. Stilman seals are installed on the V2-96A valve l- which is the most persistent Type C leakage test valve failure. The licensee should be compelled to provide a complete response. 95 F I i
4 t , Interrogatory No.154 Please describe in detail the qualified life of the stilman seals for 16" NBS check valves V2-27A, 28A, 28B and 96A. Objection: Vermont Yankee objects to this interrogatory on the ground that it is not relevant to the admitted contention. Argument The objection should be overruled for the reasons stated in the argument for Interrogatory No. 4. This interrogatory is part of the investigation of the failure of the maintenance program to maintain. containment integrity. Stilman seals are installed on the V2-96A valve which is the most-persistent Type C leakage test valve failure. In addition, qualified life information is necessary to determine if the maintenance department has selected compatible seals for containment isolation valves, if the maintenance department has followed vendor recommendations, and if the imposed preventive maintenance J requirements are consistent with the seals provided. The licensee should be compelled to provide a complete response, interre ory No.155 [ Identify all documents pertaining to the qualified life of the stilman seals for 16" NBS check valves V2-27A,28A 28B and 96A. Objection: Vermont Yankee objects to this interrogatory on the ground that it is not relevant to the admitted contention. Argument The licensee should be compelled to respond for the~ reasons stated in the argument for the foregoing interrogatory. 96
I Interrogatory No.156 _In response to Vermont's request for documents, Vermont Yankee provided the Visirecord preventive maintenance system form S 803A,
,. Machine Repair Re,:ord, for 16" NBS check valves V2-27A,28A, 28B and 96A. That form contains no record of stilman seal replacement
- during the operating cycles ending in 1987,
- a. Did Vermont Yankee perform the required seal-replacement in 19877 If your answer is snything other than an unqualified a;it tmative, then please state every reason for your answer, and for each reason:
- 1. State cach and every fact on which your reason is based;
- 2. Describe all of the eviden c n Vermont Yankee's possession or of which Vermont Yankee has knowledge that_ Vermont Yankee contends establishes each such fact;
- b. Identify each and every documentation of Vermont Yankee's replacement of Stilman seals for 16" NBS check valves V2-27A,28A,28B and 96A in 1987; and
- c. If the seals were not replaced in 1987, describe in detail each and every reason why the seals were not replaced in 1987.
Objection: Vermont Yankee objects to this interrogatory on the ground that it is not relevant to the admitted contention.
Response
Without waiving the foregoing objection. but rather , expressly relying upon the same, Vermont Yankee supplies the following information: There was no requirement of Stilman seal replacement in 1987. Stilman seal replacement each cycle for 16" NBS check valves -27A and -96A became a requirement after the 1989 outage. Valves -28A and -28B did not have stilman seals. 97
p& ,
]
q s i
.i .
. Argument L The objection should be overruled for the reasons stated in the h argument for Interrogatory No. 4. This interrogatory is part of the ;
investigation' of the failure of the maintenance program to maintain , containment integrity. Stilman seals are ' installed on the V2-96A valve which is 'the most persistent Type C leakage test valve failure. This response is evasive. The licensee should be compelled to i-provide 'a complete response. Licensee states that there "was no ll ' requirement of Stilman seal replacement in 1987." If this is because = there were no Stilman seals on the valves before 1987, the response should be modified to so state. If, on the'other hand, Stilman seals were present before 1987 and , only the requirement was " discovered" at that time, further explanation is
' required. Why did the requirement for Stilman seal replacement become a. requirement.in 19897 Why was it not made a requirement g earlier? The "no requirement" reason is not a sufficient reason to :
respond to sub'-part c for each and every reason.' If the seals failed in i 1987, why did the maintenance program not know that they should be replaced?- The licensee should be compelled to provide a complete and , nonevasive response.- Interrocatory No.157 t Does Vermont Yankee believe that t&.ure to replace the stilman m seals in 16" NBS check valves V2-27A,28A,28B and 96A at the end of- , every operating cycle. has safety significance due to 'the potential to
)
degrade containment' integrity? ~
'If your answer is anything other than an unqualified affirmative, then please state every reason for your answer, and for each reason: ,
- a. . State-each and every fact on'which your reason is based; and 1 98 i
r k y
.-----...---_----__.------___--____-.-L.-_-____-___._._-_-_N'_---..__N--
p [-. f; '. ' p;; _ a c .c
- ]l 4 w
i c f , -
?
m
- b.. Describe all of the evidence in Vermont Yankee'st ,
;h pos' session or of which Vermont Yankee has knowledge that Vermont-Yankee contends establishes each such fact. 1
, Objection:
Vermont Yankee objects to this interrogatory on the ground that it is not relevant to the admitted contention. 4 P Response:
, .Without waiving the foregoing objection, but 'rather expressly relying upon the same,- Vermont. Yankee supplies the ;
following information: No.~ See NRC letter to VYNPC, NVY 87-192, 8/19/83 and to' Interrogatory No.' 156, above. l Argumen, Vermont respectfully requests that its opportunity to move to - ; compel response to this interrogatory be preserved until it has an. opportunity to inspect and copy NRC letter NVY 83-192 (8/19/83).
-Interrogatory No.158 Does Vermont Yankee believe that failure to replace the stilman seals in 16" NBS' check valves V2-96A at the end of every operating-cycle contributed to the' failure in 1989 to initially pass its containment
~
f< local leak rate test? .. If your. answer is anything other than an-unqualified affirmative, E then please state every reason for your answer, and.for each reason: u
, a. State each and every fact on which your reason is based; and
,n .
Describe all of the evidence in Vermont Yankee's n b. E 1U , possession or of which Vermont Yankee has knowledge that Vermont Yankee contends establishes each such fact. i
? i _i Ig I 99 l 0 -o i
f -. T '
3. k :
~
' Objection:
Vermont Yankee objects to this interrogatory on the 6 , ; ground 2. hat it is not relevant to the admitted contention.
Response
Without waiving the foregoing objection, but rather expressly relying upon the same, Vermont Yankee applies the following information: . No. See Vermont Yankee Primary Containment Testing, 1989, at page 7. Argument The objection shauld be overruled for the reasons stated in the argument for Interrogatory No. 4. This interrogatory is part of the investigation of the failure of the maintenance program to maintain containment integrity. Stilnian seals are installed on the V2 96A valve Lwhich is the most persistent Type C leakage test valve failure. This response is evasise and unclear, and does not answer the-question asked. The licensee should be compelled to provide a complete' and unambiguous response. Vermont Yankee Primary
. Containment Testing,1989, at 7, states in part, ."the seats were found to be damaged." Does this mean the stilman seals were also damaged. If so, the answer to the interrogatory should be "yes."-
-If the answer is "no," the interrogatory requests the reasons, facts and: evidence that leads Vermont Yankee to the conclusion that failure of the stilman seals did not contribute to the failure of the valve to pass j g
its Type C test in 1989. None of this informatian can be found in the '! o reference. Therefore, the licensee should be compelled to provide the ! irequested information. Interrouatory No.161 g
.Please describe in detail the qualified life of the valve internals a for 16" NBS check valves V2-27B and 96B.
100 1 I
~;pr
${ < 5
> Objection::
' Vermont Yankee objects to this' interrogatory on the ground that it is not relevant to the admitted contention. '
Argument
~
-The objection should be overruled for the reasons stated in the argument for Interrogatory No. 4. This interrogatory is part of the investigation of the failure of the maintenance program to maintain containment integrity. Valves V2-27B and V2-96B have been found with .
L cracks exceeding ASME limits, in addition, qualified life information is necessary to determine if
. the maintenance department has selected compatible seals for containment isolation ~valvn if the maintenance department has followed vendor recommendations,3:an! ji the imposed preventive maintenance requirements are fanshtem with ihe seals provided.
Theilicensee shonM he compelled to. provide a complete response. Interronatory_ No.162
. Identify all documents pertaining a the qualified life of the valve .
, internals for 16" NBS check valves V2-27b and 96B. '
~ Objection:
Vermont Yankee objects to this'inierrogatory on the ground that it is not relevant to the admitted contention.
+
- Argument ' ,
The licensee should be compelled to respond for the reasons statedLin the argument for the foregoing interrogatory. Interrogatory No.163 In response to Vermont's request for documents, Vermont Yankee provided the-Visirecord preventive maintenance system form S-801, Preventive Maintenance Work Order, for containment isolation valves ly _V20-82,' 83, 94.and 95. That form lists no inspection and maintenance requirements. Please describe in detail the requirement (s), if a.y, for such inspection and maintenance and state every reason for the requirement (s), and for each reason: 101 L
1}
- 1
?
i
"- a. Suite each and every fact on which your reason is based;=
and
- b. Describe all of the evidence in Vermont Yankee's
. possession or of which Vermont Yankee has knowledge
-that Vermont Yankee contends establishes each such fact.
Objection:
. Vermont Yankee objects to this interrogatory on the -
ground that it is not relevant to the admitted contention.
Response
Without waiving the foregoing objection, but rather expressly relying' upon tiie same, Vcrmont Yankee supplies the following information: These1 valves are inspected and leak rate tested each outage as part of a Plant Technical Specification surveillance requirement. L Argument ^ The objection should be avecruled for the reasons stated in the argument for Interrogatory No. 4. This interrogatory is part of the investigation of the failure of the maintenance' program to maintain, contaimiient integrity. Valves V20-83, -94 and -95 failed their Type C tests in both 1987.and 1989. This response is transparent legerdemain. The question is about.
. preventive maintenance. Vermont Yankee attempts in its response to
~
[ make its required leak rate test into preventive maintenance. The leak-rate test is, instead, surveillance, which leads to corrective maintenance when valves do not pass. The apparent lack of understanding of what even constitutes preventive maintenance may be a serious indication of the accuracy of Contention VII. The licensee should be compelled to provide a proper response.
- If its program includes no preventive maintenance for these valves, it
,. should simply state "none" 102 i
~ --e
m 4 h' . fl i? I k Interrogatory No.' 164 Does Vermont Yankee benae that failure to indicate the required preventive maintenance operations for containment isolation valves V20-82,83,94 and_95 on Visirecord preventive maintenance system form -S.801, Preventive Maintenance Work Order, is indicative of m "un aggressive inspection and maintenance program?" ;
- 1 If your answer is anything other than an unqualified negative, then please state every reason' for your answer, and for each reason:
- a. State each and every fact on which your reason is based:
and 1
- b. Describe all of the evidence in Vermont Yankee's !
possession or of which Vermont Yankee has knowledge ! that Vermont Yankee contends establishes each such fact. ! Objection: Vermont Yankee objects to this interrogatory on the ; ground that it is not relevant to the admitted contention. Response: y Without waiving the foregoing objection, but rather expressly relying upon the same, Vermont Yankee supplies the j following information- j The Visirecords in question are records of the Maintenance Department, while the tests in question are within the ! responsibility of Engineering Support Department. The omission ! to record something not required or intended to be recorded ; seems to us to have no relevance to whether or not the maintenance program .is aggressive. l Argument j Please refer to the foregoing argument. The licensee should be compelled to modify this response which depends on the foregoing , y response, n 103 t l Il
7, ,
.e
{s r Interrogatory No.165 In response to Vermont's request for documents, Vermont Yankee provided the Visirecord preventive maintenance system form S-803A, Machine Repair Record, for containment isolation valves V20-82,83,94 and 95. That machine repair record indicates that no inspection and maintenance was done on those valves during the period November 12, 1981 through September 9,1987. Does Vermont Yankee believe that failure to perform inspection and maintenance on containment isolation valves V20-82,83,94 and 95 during a period of nearly six years is indicative of "an aggressive inspection and maintenance program?" If your answer is anything other than an unqualified negative, then please state every reason for your answer, and for each reason:
- a. State each and every fact on which your reason is based; and
- b. Describe all of the evidence in Vermont Yankee's possession or of which Vermont Yankee has knowledge that Vermont Yankee contends establishes each such fact.
Objection: Vermont Yankee objects to this interrogatory on the ground that it'is not relevant to the admitted contention.
Response
-Without waiving the foregoing objection, but rather expressly relying upon the same, Vermont Yankee supplies the following information:
The question is based on a false premise; please see the - response to Interrogatory' No.163. Argument Please refer to the argument for Interrogatory No.163. The only
' false premise is that of the licensee. A proper response should be compelled for this interrogatory.
104 i
h , . s < u i Interrogatory No.166 1 In response to Vermont's request for documents, Vermont Yankee n provided the Visirecord preventive maintenance system form S-801,
- Preventive Maintenance Work Order, for containment isolation valves :
SB-1619-7A,78,8, 9 and 10. That form lists no inspection and . d _ maintenance requirements. Please describe in detail the requirentent(s), ' if any, for such inspection and maintenance and state every reason for the reauirement(s), and for each reason: 1
- a. State each and every fact on which your reason is bas 3d; ,
4 and t' b ,- Describe all of the evidence in Vermont Yankee's possession or of which Vermont Yankee has knowledge ; that Vermont Yankee contends establishes each such fact, 1 Objection: Vermont Yankee objects to this interrogatory on the s ground that it is not relevant to the admitted contention, + 1 . Response: Without waiving the foregoing objection, but rather expressly relying upon the same, Vermont Yankee supplies the .a following information: These valves are inspected and leak rate tested each outage as part of a Plant Technical Specification surveillance t' requirement, Argument > The licensee should be compeN to provide a proper response- ; for the same reasons as stated for Interrogatory No.163. If its program
- includes no preventive maintenance for these valves, it should simply state "none."
105 9
If c , laterrogatory No.167 7
- Does Vermont Yankee believe that failure to indicate the required preventive maintenance nnerations for containment isolation valves SB 1619 7A, 70, 8, 9 .J on Visirecord preventive . .
~
-maintenance system _ form S 801, Preventive Mainte..ac.:: Work Order, is indicative of "an aggressive inspection and maintenance program?"
If your answer is anything other than an unqualified negative, then please state every reason for your answer, and for each reason:
- a. State each and every fact on which your reason is_ based; and
- b. Describe all of the evidence in Vermont Yankee's possession or of which Vermont Yankee has knowledge that Vermont Yankee contends establishes each such fact.
Objection: Vermont Yankee objects to this interrogatory on the ground that it is not relevant to the admitted contention. m
Response
Without waiving the foregoing _ objection, but rather expressly relying upon the same, Vermont Yankee supplies the following information: The Visirecords in question are records of the Maintenance Department. while the tests in question are within the - responsibility of Engineering Support Department. The omission to record something not required or intended to be recorded seems to us to have no relevance to whether or not the-maintenance program is aggressive. Argument s i Please refer to the. foregoing argument'. The licensee should be y compelled to modify this response'which depends on the foregoing
, response.
106
-{'
lilltrrogatory No.168 -
-In response to Vermont's request for documents, Vermont Yankee provided the Visirecord preventive maintenance system form S 803A,.
Machine Repair Record, for containment isolation valves SB 1619 7A.
,7B,8,9 and 10. That machine repair record indicates that no inspection and maintenance was done on valve SB-16-19-7A during the
. period ' June 27,-1973 through March 22, 1989. Does Vermont. Yankee believe that failure to perform inspection and maintenance'on containment isolation valve SB-16-19-7A during a period of nearly sbiteen years is _ indicative of "an aggressive inspection and maintenance program?"
If your answer'is anything other than an unqualified negative, then please state every reason for your answer, and for each reason:
- a. . State cach and every fact on which your reason is based; and
- b. Describe all of the evidence in Vermont Yankee's possession or of which Vermont Yankee has knowledge that Vermont Yankee contends establishes each such fact.
= Objection:
Vermont Yankee objects to this interrogatory on the ground that it is not relevant to the admitted contention.
Response
Without waiving the foregoing objection, but' rather expressly relying upon the same, Vermont Yankee supplies the following' information: Please see above. The assertion that no inspection was s performed is not correct.
, Argument Please refer to'the argument for Interrogatory No.166. For these:
w reasons, the assertion that no inspection was performed does appear to be correct. A proper response should be compelled for this interrogatory. 107 f
e
+
Interrogatory No.169-In response to Vermont's request for documents, Vermont Yankee provided the Visirecord preventive maintenance system form S 803A; Machine Repair Record, for containment isolation valves SB-15-19 7A, 7B,,8, 9 and 10. That rwchine repair record inuicates that no inspection and maintenance was done on valve SB-16-19 7B prior to March 25,1989. Does Vermont Yankee believe that failure to perform inspection and maintenance on containment isolation valve SB 1619 7B during a i fbriod of more than seventeen years is indicative of "an aggressive inspection and maintenance program?" If your answer is anything other than an unqualified negative, then please state every reason for your answer, and for each reason:
- a. State each and every fact on which your reason is based; and
- b. Describe all of the evidence in Vermont Yankee's possession or of which Vermont Yankee has knowledge that Vermont Yankee contends establishes each such fact.
Objection: Vermont Yankee objects to this interrogatory on the ground that it is not relevant to the admitted contention.
, Response:
Without waiving the foregoing objection, but rather expressly relying upon the same, Vermont Yankee supplies the following information: Please see above. The assertion that no inspection was performed is not correct. Argument The argument for this interrogatory is the same as the foregoing interrogatory. 108
+
x
<h .7 Interrogatory No.170 In response to. Vermont's request for documents, Vermont Yankee provided the Visirecord preventive ' maintenance system form S 803A,.
Machine Repair Record, for containment isolation valves SB 1619-7A,
.7B,8; 9 and 10. - That machine repair record indicates that no
-inspection and . maintenance was done on valve SB 1619 9 during the period June 11,1982 through March 27,1989. Does Vermont Yankee believe that failure to perform inspection and maintenance on containment isolation valve SB-1619 9 during a period of nearly seven
-years is indicative of "an aggressive inspection and maintenance program?"
If your' answer is anything other than an unqualified negative, then please state every reason for your answer, and for each reason:
- a. : State _each and every fact on which your reason is based; and
- b. Describe all of the evidence in Vermont Yankee's possession or of which Vermont Yankee has knowledge that Vermont Yankee contends establishes each such fact.
Objectiom y Vermont Yankee objects to this interrogatory on the. ground that it is not relevant to the admitted contention.
Response
Without waiving the foregoing objection, but rather sxpressly relying upon the same, Vermont Yankee supplies the following information: Please see above. The assertion that nu hopection was performed is not correct.
. Argument
' The argument for this interrogatory is the same as the foregoing
- o interrogatory.
109
n ..
, m -
i; t! b' ti o 1 Interrogatory No.171 In response to Vermont's request for documents, Vermont Yankee provided the Visirecord preventive maintenance system form S-803A, Machine Repair Record, for containment isolation valves 86 M 10-7A, ) 7B, 8, 9 and 10. That machine repair record indicates that. no inspection and maintenance was done on valve SB-16-1910 since July 25, ; 1977. Does Vermont Yankee believe that failure to perform inspection and maintenance on containment isolation valve SB 161910 during a period of nearly twelve years is indicative of "an aggressive inspection . and maintenance program?" If your answer is_ anything other than an unqualified negative,
- then please state every reason for your answer, end for each reason: l
- a. State each and every fact on w .: your reason is based; S
and
- b. Describe all of the evidence in Vermont Yankee's -l possession' or of which Vermont Yankee has knowledge that Vermont Yankee contends establishes each such fact.
Objection: Vermont Yankee objects to' this interrogatory on the. , ground that it is not relevant to the admitted contention.
Response
Without waiving the foregoing objection, but rather expressly relying upon the same, Vermont Yankee supplies the following information: Please see above. The assertion that no inspection was performed is not correct. Argument
; The argument for this interrogatory is the same as the foregoing interrogatory.
110 I w
~
g, - x k. }. b g
. Interrogatory No.172 1:
In response to Vermont's request for documents, Vermont Yankee provided the Visirecord preventive' maintenance system form S-801, Preventive Maintenance Work Order, for containment isolation valves SB-16-19-6A and 6B. That form lists no inspection and maintenance ; requirements. Please describe in detail the requirement (s), if any, for j such inspection and maintenance and state every reason for the y , requirement (s), and for each reason:
- a. State cach and every fact on which your reason is based: _ ,
and
- b. Describe all of the evidence in Vermont Yankee's possession or of which Vermont Yankee has knowledge that Vermont Yankee contends establishes each such fact.
Objection: Vermont Yankee objects to this interrog.itory on the ground that it is not relevant to the admitted e .ntention.
~ Response:
Without waiving the foregoing objection, but rather expressly relying upon the same, Vermont Yankee supplies the 3 following information: These valves are inspected and leak rate tested each outage as.part of a Plant Technical Specification surveillance requirement. Argument
~
g- The licensee should be compelled to provide a proper response ] P for the same reasons as stated for Interrogatory No.163. If its program includes no preventive maintenance for these valves, it should simply state "none." E 111 a l. I
gn h u - et,
- l. ,
Interrogate.f No.173-
- v. -Does' Vermont Yankee believe that failure to indicate the required preventive maintenance operations for containment isolation valves SB 1619 6A and 6B on Visirecord preventive maintenance system form S 801,- Preventive Maintenance Work Order, is indicative. of an
~
< aggressive inspection and maintenance program?"
4 If.your answer is anything other than an unqualified negative, then please state every reason for your answer, and for each reason:-
- a. State each and every fact on which your reason is based; and
- b. Describe all of the evidence in Vermont Yankee's !
possession or of which Vermont Yankee has knowledge .! l . that Vermont Yankce contends establishes each such fact. Objection: 1 Vermont Yankee objects to this interrogatory on the ground that it is not relevant to;the admitted contention.
)
Response
i Without waiving the foregoing objection, but rath':r l expresslyLrelying upon the same, Vermont Yankee supplies the following information: 3 The Visirecords in question are records of the Maintenance Department, while the tests in question are within the- _; responsibility of engineering Support Department. The omission _l
-to record something not required or intended to be recorded
.se' ems to us to have no relevance to whether or not the maintenance program is aggressive.
Argument Please refer to the foregoing argument. The licensee should be
..( - compelled to modify this response which depends on the foregoing .{
response. .3 3
)
I12 I
np 4 -: ; 4 f . r -l h Interrogatory No; 174 I In. response to Vermont's request for documents, Vermont Yankee provided the Visirecord preventive maintenance system form S-803A, - Machine Repair Record, for containment isolation valves SB-16-19 6A and 6B. That machine repair record indicates that no inspection and maintenance was done on valve SB-1619-6A during the period October
- 19, 1973 th^ rough March 22, 1989. Does Vermont Yankee believe that failure to perform inspection and maintenance on containment isolation '
valve SB-16-19-6A during a period of more than fifteen years is indicative of "an aggressive inspection and maintenance program?" If your answer is anything other than an unqualified negative, then please state every reason for your answer, and for each reason:
- a. State each and every fact on which your reason is based; and
- b. Describe all of the evidence in Vermont Yankee's possession or of which Vermont Yankee has knowledge that Vermont Yankee contends establishes each such fact.
Objection: Vermont Yankee objects to this interrogatory on the ground that it is not relevant to the admitted contention.
- Response:
Without waiving,the foregoing objection, but rather expressly relying upon the same, Vermont Yankee. supplies the-following information: Please see above. The assertion that no inspection was performed is not correct. ! Argument. Please refer to the argument for Interrogatory No.172. For these 4 reasons, the assertion that no inspection was performed does appear to 1. be ' correct; A proper. response should be compelled for this interrogatory. 113 l l
, :;i:
t i 1 i
', 6' Interrogatory No.175 In response to Vermont's request for documents, Vermont Yankee - 1 provided the Visirecord preventive maintenance system form S 803A,-
Machine Repair Record, for containment isolation valves SB-16-19-6A - and 6B. ~ That machine repair record indicates that no inspection and maintenance was done on valve SB 16-19 6B.during the period October 1,1977 through March 22, 1989 Does Vermont Yankee believe that - failure to perform inspection and maintenance on containment isolation valve SB-16-19 6B during a period of more than eleven years is indicative of "an' aggressive inspection and maintenance program?" If your answer is any" ling other than an unqualified negative, > then please state evay reason for your answer, and for each reason: , a.. State each and every fact on which your reason is based; . sd l li, Describe all of the evidence in Vermont Yankee's possession or of which Vermont Yankee has knowledge - that Vermont Yankee contends establishes each such fact. Objection: Vermont Yankee objects to this interrogatory on the
; ground that it is not relevant to the admitted contention.
Respt,nse: Without waiving the foregoing objection, but rather .l expressly relying upon the same, Vermont Yankee supplies the following information: Please~ see above. The assertion that no inspection was performed is not correct. Argument The argument for this interrogatory is the same as the foregoing interrogatory, 114
interrogatory No. .M lias Vermont Yankee reviewed and determhwd :o be correct, since Vermont Yonkee adopted a refueling outage cycle of approximately once cach eighteen months, the required inspection frequency (" approx, every third refueling") for 3" NDS gate valve V2 7'i? [ If your answer is anything other than an unqualified affirmative, then please state every reason for your answer, and for each reason: , n. State each and every fact on which your reason is based, and n b. Describe ali of the evidence in Vermeat Yankee's L possession or of which Vnt . ant Ya;ikce has knowledge that Vermont Yankee contends ecablishes each such fact. Objection: Vermont Yankee objects to this interrogatory on the ground that it is not relevant to the admitted contention.
Response
Without waiving the foregoing objection, but rather expressly relying upon the same, Vermont Yankee supplies the following information: Yes. See the response to Interrogatary No.180. f Argument m The objectiur. should be overruled for the reasons stated in the argument for Interrogatory No.163. This : response is incompicte. The m reference is apparently to the stmement, "Our reccntly improved inspection procedure for the motor operator usi:ng MOVATS is designed for the eighteen month refueling cycle." This may be the reason that Vermont Yankee has determined that the extended inspection frequency P is adequate. Ilowever, the in'errogatory requested all facts and evidence; What facts establish that the MOVATS procedure allows m extended inspection frequencies? What evidence exists of a documented review and determination of these facts? This is the information which h is sought by the interrogatory. The licensee should be compelled to [ respond to the interrogatory. 115 1
- 4 l'
, 3 kjy.j s -
, g a
g .:, g Fo 4 m , 9
}
3 L i
. c' Interrogatorv No.186 ,.l Please describe in detail the' qualified life of the O rings for 1- ,
1/2" Circle Seal check valve V72-89C. ] . [' Objectiori: !
' Vermont Yankee objects to this interrogatory on the j
, ground that it is not relevant to the admitted contention. ;
/
& ' Argument - q
.f . The objection slIould be overruled for t$c ?ccasons stated in the ,
r 4 1 argument for Interrogatory No. 4.- This interrogatory is part of the c- , investigation of the failure of the maintenance program to maintain j containment integrity. Valve V72 89C failed its Type C test in both '; ? i'4 - 1984 and 1989.
'In addition, qualified life information is necessary to determine if
.'. s i' the maintenance department'has selected compatible seals for i
[p . ' containment isolation valve:,, if the maintenance department has followed y vendor recommendations, and if the imposed preventive maintemince i requirements are consistent with the seals provided. The licensee should be compelletl to respond. i y - i Interrogatory No.187 Identify all documents pertaining to the qualified life of the O- 1 rings for 1-1/2" Circle Seal check valve V72 89C. j e ! Objection: i Vermont Yankee objects to this interrogatory on the' i ground that it is not relevant to the admitted contention. Argument- ; t The licensee should be compelled to respond for the reasons i [ stated in the argument for the foregoing interrogatory. [ y L i 116 . 9 4 .
..in -
c Interrugatory No.189 Please identify the maintenance craftsperson(s) who determined the existence of the
- excessive seat leakage" listed as the ' Description of Problem / Symptom' on Maintenance llequest 87-0787 for Valve FW 2811.
Objection: Vermont Yankee objects to this interrogatory on the ground that it is not relevant to the admitted contention. Argument The objection should be overruled fcr the reasons stated in the argument for Interrogatory No. 4. This interrogatory is part of the investigation of the failure of the maintenance program to maintain containment integrity, Valve FW 28B is a containment isolation valve in which cracks were found and which was known to leak. Vermont needs this identification in order to have the option to depose these craftspersons. The licensee should be compelled to respond. Interrogatory No.190 Please identify all documents which record the existence of the
" excessive seat leakage" listed as the ' Description of Problem / Symptom' on Maintenance llequest 87 0787 for Valve FW 2811.
Objection: Ver.nont Yankee objects to this interrogatory on the ground that it is not relevant to the admitted contention. Argumen' The licensee should be compelled to respond for the same reasons as stated for the previous interrogatory. 117
I Interrogatory No.193 Please state each and every reason why the seat leakage of Valve FW-028B, discovered in April 1987, was not repaired before March 1989, considering FW-028B is an inboard containment isolation valve. For each reason, please:
- a. State each and every fact on which your reason is cased;
- b. Describe all of the evidence in Vermont Yankee's possession or of which Vermont Yankee has knowledge that Vermont Yankee contends establishes each such fact; and
- c. Either provide the technical qualifications (education, employment history, licenses and certificates, experience, or other information that Vermont Yankee contends establishes the qualifications of the person), of any person on whose expertise Vermont Yankee relics for the reason or state that Vermont Yankee does not rely upon the expertise of any person for the reason.
Objection: Verrnont Yankee objects to this interrogatory on the ground that it is not relevant to the admitted contention.
Response
Without waiving the foregoing objection, but rather expressly relying upon the same, Vermont Yankee supplies the following information: Please see above. The only " leakage" that was discovered (in 1.985, not 1987) was that described in the response to Interrogatory No.192. 118 ! 4 II
x ' ( A- ; o : h r c: y ; J. Y Argument - The objection should be overrulet 4r the reasons stated for- { interrogatory No.189. This response is vi a complete response. The ; reference to the response to Interrogatory No.192 provides a partial 4 answer. What must yet be provided are reasons (and related facts, L : evidence and expertisc) demonstrating why repair of FW 28B, as a l containment isolation valve, was assigned ."a priority of '3' (the. lowest l priority)." The licensee should be compelled to provide a complete - I answer. , Interronatory No.194 1 r I Does Vermont Yankee agree with the statement from LER 89 07 ; at page 3, as it was meant to apply to the as found condition of j y t ? containment penetration X 9B: E . .
- "The inboard isolation valve V2 28B, even k' though not tested, will provide an isolation ,
function in combination with VT 'MA." ;
- i. If your. answer lis anything other than an unqualified negative, .
then please' state every reason for your answer considering Maintenance l Request 87-0787, and for each reason: , g
- a. State each and every fact on 'which your reason is based; ,
- b. Describe all 'of the evidence in Vermont Yankee's . ,
possession or of which Vermont Yankee has knowledge m that Vermont Yankee contends establishes each such fact; ; and
- c. Ei ther provide' the technical qualifications (education, y imployment history, licenses and certificates, exparience, or other information that Vermont Yankee contends establishes the qualifications of the person), of any person i onLwhose expertise Vermont Yankee relies for the reason :
or state that Vermont Yankee does not rely upon the , expertise of any person for the reason. a 1 g 119
?
m . l l Objection: Vermont Yankee objects to this interrogatory on the ground that it is not relevant to the admitted contention.
Response
Without waiving the foregoing objection, but rather expressly relying upon the same, Vermont Yankee supplies the following inlormation: Please see SER NVY 83192, August 19, 1983, and the response to Interrogatory No.10, above. Argument The objection should be overruled for the same reasons as the foregoing interrogatory. Vermont suspects the quoted statement in the interrogatory was knowingly, or should have been known to be, false when it was made in the LER 89-07, llowever, Vermont respectfully requests that its opportunity to move to compel response to this interrogatory be preserved until it has an opportunity to inspect and copy NRC letter NVY 83 '92 (8/19/83). By its attorney, [ wm 0
/
( lj i i amesJ Volz
' ) Director for Public Advocacy Department of Pubile Service 120 State Street Montpelier, Vermont 05620 (802) 828 2811 L)ated: October 4,1990 120 ').
t >
;JLntiLD j
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA U NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION j' before the
-9 P 2 'Al ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSIhb h RD
) N !CE Di SECilll###
In the Matter of ) OCKl 70 k' VERMONT YANKEE NUCLEAR POWER CORPORATION
) Docket $.f50-271-OLA-4
) (Operating License (Vermont Yankee Nuclear
) Extension)
)
Power Station) )
!. )
CERTIFICATE OF'BERVICE I hereby certify that on October 5, 1990, I made service of
" Motion to Compel Answers to Interrogatories (Vermont Set No.
3)",'in accordance with rules of the commission by mailing a copy thereof postage prepaid to the following: Administrative Judge Administrative Judge L Robert M. Lazo, Chairman Jerry R. Kline i Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Atomic Safety and Licensing Board ' Washington, DC 20555 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory " Commission Washington, DC 20555 Eugene Holler, Esq. 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 Coumission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Washington, DC 20555 Commission Washington, DC 20555 R. K. Gad, III, Esq. Anthony Z. Roisman,.Esq. Ropes & Gray Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & One International Place Toll Boston, MA 02110 Suite 600 1401 New York Avenue, N.W. Adjudicatory File Washington, D.C. 20005 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel U.S.N.R.C. Washington, DC 20555 f
\
__ \ Lnv%
' James Volz
.I
$ irector for'Publio[eAdvocacy Dated: October 5, 1990 t-}}