ML090060108

G20080678/EDATS: OEDO-2008-0750 - Vermont Yankee, Response Letter to Michael Mulligan

ML090060108
Person / Time
Site:	Vermont Yankee File:NorthStar Vermont Yankee icon.png
Issue date:	01/09/2009
From:	Blount T NRC/NRR/ADRO
To:	Mulligan M - No Known Affiliation
Blount T 415-5710
Shared Package
ML090060091	List: ML090060108
References
2.206, EDATS: OEDO-2008-0750, G20080678, OEDO-2008-0750
Download: ML090060108 (39)

Text

UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20555-0001 JaTlllRry q, xt>>

Mr. Michael Mulligan P.O. Box 161 Hinsdale, NH 03451

Dear Mr. Mulligan:

Your e-mail dated September 28, 2008, addressed to Chairman Klein has been referred to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's (NRC) Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation pursuant to Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR), Section 2.206. You requested: (1) NRC should require Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station (VY) to reduce the functional and operational load testing limits for the emergency diesel generators (EDGs) to the old limits because it is not safe to test the EDGs at their maximum load, and (2) NRC should require VY to conduct a detailed inspection of both VY EDGs based on the past common mode EDG functional failures of components in the machines.

The NRC's Petition Review Board (PRB) met on November 12, 2008, to discuss your petition.

The PRB's initial recommendation was not to accept your petition because it fails to provide sufficient facts to warrant additional inquiry. The NRC staff informed you of this determination on November 12, 2008, at which time you requested an opportunity to address the PRB to discuss your petition request.

On November 13, 2008, you sent another e-mail as a supplement to your petition. By teleconference on November 25, 2008, you provided information to the PRB as further explanation and support for your petition. The transcript of this teleconference is enclosed.

On December 8, 2008, you provided additional supplemental information via e-mail in which you suggested the need for an investigation by the Office of the Inspector General (OIG).

On December 16, 2008, the PRB held a meeting to evaluate all the information presented by the petitioner and make a final recommendation.

The PRB's final determination is to not accept your petition requests for review under the 10 CFR 2.206 process because they do not meet the criteria for acceptance in Management Directive 8.11, "Review Process for 10 CFR 2.206 Petitions", as explained below.

Your first request will not be accepted for review in the 10 CFR 2.206 process because it is a challenge to NRC regulations, which require that the EDGs be tested at the maximum expected design-basis accident load conditions. Specifically, 10 CFR Part 50 Appendix B, Criterion III, "Design Control," and Criterion XI, "Test Control," require that components such as the EDGs be tested to demonstrate that they are capable of performing their design function. Although challenges to NRC regulations may not be accepted for review in the 10 CFR 2.206 process, you may file a petition for rulemaking pursuant to 10 CFR 2.208 if you wish to challenge tile above regulatory requirements. You can obtain information on the rulemaking process on the NRC public website - http://www.nrc.gov/about-nrc/regulatory/rulemaking.html.

M. Mulligan

- 2 Additionally, your first request will not be accepted for review in the 10 CFR 2.206 process because you failed to provide sufficient facts to constitute a basis for the requested action or to warrant further inquiry into your claim that testing the EDGs at their maximum load would pose a safety problem. You rely upon an event that took place in the early 1990s at VY, where you stated that the licensee increased the EDG test load and broke a piston. The PRB noted that VY miscalculated the maximum design load, resulting in testing the EDGs at 3,200 't<YV, which was a much higher load than the continuous and short time design ratings of the EDGs.

Although the EDGs operated successfully at 3,200 't<YV, the EDG manufacturer recommended inspections of both EDGs. These inspections revealed a crack on the number eleven (No. 11) cylinder piston insert of the "An EDG. The licensee's root cause evaluation determined that the crack was attributable to a manufacturing defect on the "An EDG, and was not related to the operation of the machine at the higher load of 3,200 't<YV. The licensee replaced the defective piston insert and reported this event in License Event Reports 90-10 and 90-10, Supplement 1, in accordance with 10 CFR 50.73.

The licensee's inspection of the EDGs did not identify any common mode failure of the EDGs as a result of this testing anomaly. The NRC review of this issue in 1990 concluded that the licensee had taken appropriate corrective actions in accordance with NRC regulations. The PRB noted that there were no common mode failures with the EDGs since the manufacturing defect existed in only one EDG and the crack was unrelated to the operation of the machine at the higher load of 3,200 KW. In addition, the NRC staff notes that the licensee implements a preventive maintenance (PM) program for the EDGs based on manufacturer recommendations and industry operating experience. This PM program includes internal inspection of the EDGs and replacement of parts, such as the cylinder liners, on a periodic basis. Therefore, your second request that the NRC compel the licensee to undertake an inspection of the VY EDGs based on past common mode functional failures of components in the machines, will not be accepted for review in the 2.206 process because you failed to set forth any new facts sufficient to constitute a basis for the requested action.

In addition, in your latest correspondence you indicated that you thought an Inspector General's Investigation may be warranted. The staff has forwarded that recommendation to the NRC's OIG. You should be aware that you may forward your concerns directly to the OIG through the NRC public website - http://www.nrc.gov/insp-gen/complaint.htmlor the OIG Hotline (1-800-233-3497) at anytime.

M. Mulligan

- 3 Thank you for bringing these issues to the attention of the NRC.

Thomas Blount, Deputy Director Division of Policy and Rulemaking Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Docket No. 50-271

Enclosure:

As stated cc w/encl: Distribution via ListServ

M. Mulligan

- 3 Thank you for bringing these issues to the attention of the NRC.

Sincerely, IRA!

Thomas Blount, Deputy Director Division of Policy and Rulemaking Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Docket No. 50-271

Enclosure:

As stated cc w/encl: Distribution via ListServ Package: ML090060091 Response: ML090060108 Incoming: ML082840416

Enclosure:

ML083400301 I

1: ML083530209 S

I t2 ML083530317 Supplernent uppiernen OFFICE LPL1-1/PM LPL 1-1/LA R1/BC EEEB/BC LPL1-1/BC DPRIDD NAME JKim SLittie LDoerflein GWilson MKowal TBlount DATE 1/07/09 1/07/09 1/7/2009 Via e-mail 1/08/09 1/08/09 1/09/09 OFFICIAL RECORD COPY

LETTER TO MR. MULLIGAN DATED DISTRIBUTION: G200B067B/EDATS: OEDO-200B-0750 PUBLIC LPL1-1 R/F RidsNrrDorl RidsNrrDorlLpl1-1 RidsNrrDpr RidsNrrDprPspb RidsNrrAdro RidsNrrPMJKim RidsNrrLASLittle (hard copy)

TMensah, NRR RidsAcrsAcnwMailCenter RidsNrrMailCenter Resource RidsOgcRp RidsOgcMailCenter RidsEDOMailCenter RidsOpaMail RidsRgn1 MailCenter RidsNrrOd RidsOeMailCenter RidsOIGMailCenter

Title:

Vermont Yankee 2.206 Petition Docket Number:

50-271 Location:

(telephone conference)

Date:

Tuesday, November 25, 2008 Work Order No.:

NRC-2560 Pages 1-33 NEAL R. GROSS AND CO., INC.

Court Reporters and Transcribers 1323 Rhode Island Avenue, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 234-4433

1 2

3 4

6 7

8, 9

1 1

12 13 14 1

16 17 18 19 2

2 22 23 24 2

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

+ + + + +

PETITION REVIEW BOARD TELECONFERENCE In the Matter of:

VERMONT YANKEE 10 CFR 2. 206 Docket No.

PETITION 50-271 FROM MICHAEL MULLIGAN Tuesday, November 25, 2008 10:05 a.m.

BEFORE:

TOM BLOUNT, Petition Review Board Chairman Deputy Director of Policy and Rule Making, NRR J~IES KIM, Petition Review Board Manager TANYA MENSAH, Petition Review Board Coordinator NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 2344433 WASHINGTON. D.C. 20005-3701 VI'NW.nealrgross.com

2 2

3 4

61 7

8 9

1 11 12 13 14 1

16 17 18 19 2

21 22 23 24 25 NRC HEADQUARTERS STAFF:

MARK KOWAL, NRR ROY MATTHEW, NRR JOHN McHALE, NRR STACY ROSENBERG, NRR ROBERT WOLFGAN, NRR G.S. MATHARU, NRR NRC REGION I STAFF:

LAWRENCE T. DOERFLEIN JOHN ROGGE AMI RAO PETITIONER:

MICHAEL MULLIGAN, Petitioner LICENSEE ENTERGY PERSONNEL DAVID MANNAI NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., NW.

(202) 2344433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

3 2

3 4

6 7

8 9

1 1

12 13 14 18 19 2

2 22 23 24 2

APPEARANCES:

On Behalf of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission:

JENNY LONGO, ESQ.

Of:Office of the General Counsel Mail Stop 0-15 D21 US Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISlAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

4 P-R-O-C-E-E-D-I-N-G-S 2

1 (10:05 a.m.)

3 MR.

BLOUNT:

Good morning and welcome to 4

the NRC meeting regarding the 2.206 petition request submitted regarding the Vermont Yankee nuclear power plant in Vermont.

Before we get into the heart of the 8

discussion, I

would like to provide some general 9

information about the NRC's 2.206 process.

Under 1

Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Section 1

2.206, any person may petition the NRC to take an 12 enforcement-related

action, such as modifying, 13 suspending, or revoking a license.

The NRC staff's 14 guidance for the disposition of 2.206 petition 15 requests is in Management Directive 8.11, which is 16 publicly available for review.

17 The purpose of today's meeting is to 18 provide the petitioner an opportunity to comment on 19 the Petition Review Board's initial recommendation, 2

and to provide any relevant additional explanation and 21 support for the petition.

22 This meeting is not a hearing, nor is it 23 an opportunity to examine the Petition Review Board on 24 the merits of the issues presented in the petition request.

No decisions regarding the merits of this NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISlAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 2344433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 wwwnealrgross.com

5 2

3 4

6 7

8 9

1 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2

2 22 23 24 2

petition will be made at this meeting.

Following this

meeting, the Petition Review Board will conduct internal deliberations to determine if there is a need to modify its initial recommendations.

The outcome of this internal meeting will be documented in a letter to the Petitioner.

I would like to summarize the scope of the petition under consideration and the NRC activities to 28 t h date.

On September 2008, Mr. Michael l1ulligan submitted to the NRC a petition under 2.206 regarding issues of uncertainty of not having a common mode failure with the emergency diesel generators at vermont Yankee.

On November 13 t h,

2008, the Petitioner provided supplemental information via email for the PRE to consider.

In this petition request, Mr.

Mulligan requested that the NRC,

one, reduce the functional and operational load testing limits for the emergency diesel generators to the old limit.

Two, conduct a detailed inspection of both Vermont Yankee diesel generators based on the past common mode diesel generators function failures of components in the machines:

Allow me to discuss the NRC activities to 12 t h date.

On November

, the NRR Petition Review Board NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., NW.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 WNW.nealrgross.com

6 met to review the petition against the acceptance 2

criteria in Management Directive 8.11, and discuss the 3

need for any NRC actio~s related to the Vermont Yankee 4

nuclear power plant.

Based on the information submitted in the petition, the PRB made an initial determination not to accept the petition for review under che 2.206 petition review process because the petition request did not set forth sufficient facts to constitute a 1

basis for reducing the functional and operational load 1

testing limits for the emergency diesel generators to 12 the old limits.

The PRB decided to not accept for 13 consideration under the 2.206 process for the request 14 of conducting a detailed inspection of the Vermont 1

Yankee diesel generators because this request is not 1

an enforcement-type action.

12 t h 17 Following the November meeting, the 18 petition manager, James Kim, informed the Petitioner, 19 Mr. Mulligan, that the initial decision of the PRB was 2

to not accept the request as a 2.206 petition, and 2

made available the opportunity for the Petitioner to 22 address the PRB.

23 MR.

MULLIGAN :

I don I t really think he 24 said -- he really didn't say that it wasn't accepted.

2 Just that for accuracy sake.

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISlAND AVE., NW.

(202) 2344433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgrQSS.com

7 COURT REPORTER:

Excuse me.

Is this Mr.

2 1

Mulligan?

3 MR. MULLIGAN:

Yes.

COURT REPORTER:

Thank you.

MR. MULLIGAN:

You know, he really didn't say it wasn't accepted.

7 MR.

KIM:

It was not accepted for 2.206 8

petition at the time.

9 MR.

MULLIGAN:

I mean just for accuracy 1

sake, that's the way I interpreted it.

Go ahead.

1 MR.

BLOUNT:

Understand.

So, Mr.

12 Mulligan, if I did not capture the essence of your 13 petition and the issues correctly, please clarify 14 during your remarks.

1 Again, the purpose of the meeting today is 16 to provide the Petitioner with an opportw1ity to 17 comment on the Petition Review Board's initial 18 recommendation, and to provide additional information 19 and explanation in support of the petition.

The 2

purpose of this meeting is not to provide an 21 opportunity for the meeting participants to question 22 or examine the Petition Review Board regarding the 23 merits of the petition request.

This meeting is not a 24 hearing.

2 No decision regarding the merits of the 4

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.w.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

8 2

3 4

6 7

8 9

1 1

12 13 14 1

16 17 18 19 2

2 22 23 24 25 petition request will be made during this meeting.

Subsequent to the meeting, the PRE will conduct an internal meeting to make a final recommendation on whether to accept or reject the petitions for review.

The results of that meeting will be documented in an acknowledgment letter to the Petitioner.

The Petition Review Board typically consists of a Chairman, usually an SES level manager a t the agency.

It has a Petition Manager, which for plant-specific petition is usually the Licensing Project Manager.

Other members of the Board are determined by the NRC staff based on the content of the information in the petition request.

At this time, I'd like to introduce the

Board, and then turn the meeting over to the Petitioner.

I am Tom Blount, the Petition Review Board Chairman.

James Kim is the Petition Manager for the petition under discussion.

Tanya :Hensah is the Office's 2.206 coordinator.

In addition, we have Larry Doerflein from the NRC's regional office on the Petition Review Board.

We also obtain advice from our Office of General Counsel, represented by Jenn~r Longo.

As described in our process, the N1tC Staff may ask clarifying questions in order to better understand the Petitioner's presentation, and to reach NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 2344433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 WNW.nealrgross.com

9 2

3 4

6 7

8 9

1 1

12 13 14

1.

16 17 18 19 2

21 22 23 24 25 a reasoned decision whether to accept or reject. the Petitioner's request for review under the 2.206 process.

I will note that Entergy, the licensee for the Vermont Yankee nuclear power plant, has also been invited to this meeting, and will be afforded an opportunity to ask clarifying questions of the Petitioner.

For clarification, the licensee is not part of the decision making process or the NRC I s review of the 2.206 petition.

We invite the licensee so that they are aware of the ongoing request for action against their

facility, and provide an opportunity to ask any questions so that they may understand the details pertaining to their facility.

Are there any general questions regarding the 2.206 process before I turn it over to the Petitioner?

Very well, hearing none -

as a reminder for the phone participants, please identify yourself if you make any remarks as this will help us in the preparation of the meeting transcript that will be made publicly available.

Thank you.

Mr. Mulligan, please provide your comments at this time.

MR. MULLIGAN:

Thank you.

I'd 1ike to remind everybody that we've NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., us:

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

10 1

2 3

4 5

6 7

8 9

1 1

12 13 14 1

16 17 18 19 2

21 22 23 24 2

had an election here.

We're electing the first black President, all of our political -- Congress is Democrats and stuff like that, there's just been a change of directions as far as that's concerned.

I'd also like to remind everybody that we're facing a depression-like era, and there could be a lot of pressures on a lot of these utilities with financing and cutting back on types of costs and stuff like that.

I'd just like to have everybody aware of that.

When I was talking to James, I basically made an addendum to my initial thing.

I recognize that vermont Yankee hadn't tested diesels above 2750, but my -- but I'm going to say now that those diesels aren't conservative.

They never were conservative.

The whole thing with how they came about corning up with these load limits for the diesel generator is mind-boggling, to say the least.

My idea of a ideal generator and load would be a generator that has 1,000 kilowatts of load.

As to the design of this machine, that's a. normal continuous design of the machihe, so it would -- so the max load, normal load would be 1,000 kilowatts.

So you'd have a design accident, like at Vermont Yankee, of load of -- I would say that should be about 75 percent of the load, the design load of the NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.w.

(202) 2344433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

11 2

3 4

6 7

8 9

1 1

12 13 14 1

1 17 18 19 2

21 22 23 24 25 machine, so the accident load should approach about 75 percent of the machine capacity, 750 kilowatts.

You should never allow in any accident condition that you shut a breaker on, stuff like that.

You should always depend upon 1,000 kilowatt load design, machine load of diesel generators.

Now, because it's a critical piece of power equipment for a nuclear power plant, we should build those machines beyond durable.

They should be designed to take up an addi tional level, say maybe between 10-20 percent, so you should -- all the design accidents. and stuff should always be 1,000 kilowatts or less.

You should have an extra set of durability and reliability by designing the machine to pick up an addi tional 10 or 20 percent above 1,000 kilowatts.

That's conservative.

You design these machines that you can really beat the heck out of them if something was to go wrong and unexpected, a calculation was not understood, or not carried out, or somebody made a human error, or something like that, you just want a level of conservatism with these machines, because they're such an important piece of equipment for nuclear safety.

Now, the first LER we'll talk about: is the NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISlAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 2344433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

2 3

4 6

7 1

11 12 13 14 1

16 17 18 19 2

2 22 23 24 2

12 one in 1991 where they -- oh, back up a second.

I already said to talk about the LER in 1991.

At the

time, I

was an employee at Vermont Yankee.

I was a licensed operator, and I was performing the auxiliary operator job, and I was coming in and out of that -

those emergency diesel generator rooms twice a shift or more, and stuff like that, did a lot of work on those diesel generators.

At the time frame of 1990-91, I was having grave concerns with truth-telling, and honesty, and stuff, and so I've raised a number of ~mist1e blower issues, and stuff like that.

I want you to know for a number of years, for many years, a decade or more, I would walk in and out of those machine rooms and there would be roof leaks, and there'd be water leaking down on the engine.

There'd be plastic sheets.

There'd be water leaking down on the control panel.

There would be water leaking down on the engine.

There was water marks on the generator itself, part of it, and stuff like that, so I started raising a lot of ruckus internally and with the NRC.

And I had a really difficult time getting people to pay attention to what I was saying.

So I'd come in there in the warrters,

and the summers with thunderstorms and stuff, and I'd find plastic sheeting up against the diesel generator NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

13 1

control panel protecting it from rainwater.

I noticed 2

water leaking on the generator itself, on the engine.

3 Even when I had the NRC inspectors in there, it would 4

be a sunny day and I would show them water leaks, marks and stuff like that.

So that generally sets up the condition of those two years in '90, '91, stuff 7

like this.

This is when this first LER popped up in 8

to my attention and stuff.

9 It's noted in this Badabourough 1

[Brattleboro]

Reformer story, talks about ))uilding 1

vermont Yankee.

When the reactor came on line in 12 1972, it was far over budget.

The Reformer put the 13 cost at $202 million,

$22 million more than the 14 original estimate.

The Vermont Department of Public 1

Service put the construction cost at $220 rnillion, 16 more than $450 million in today' s money.

DPERC said 17 Vermont Yankee was two years late,' and two and a half 18 times the cost.

19 Now, I'll go over a few things wi.th that 2

LER.

The LER is 90-010-02, and the date is 8/16/1990.

2 And, by the way, behind all of this is the recent 22 Atomic Safety Board I s decision that the core spray 23 nozzles and the feed water nozzles are -- they haven't 24 been thoroughly analyzed, so you're talking about a 25 break, a potential, or an uncertainty with a break of NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.w.

(202) 2344433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005*3701 www.nealrgross.com

14 2

3 4

6 7

8 9

1 11 12 13 14 1

16 17 18 19 2

2 22 23 24 2

a large pipe type of thing, or MS.

LONGO:

Mr.

Mulligan, could you identify the proceeding that that decision was issued in?

MR. MULLIGAN:

LER 90-10-02.

MS. LONGO:

If that's an LER, what you COURT REPORTER:

1 ' m sorry.

Who's speaking now?

MS. LONGO:

-- NRC proceeding.

COURT REPORTER:

This is the transcriber.

Who asked the question?

MS. LONGO:

This is Ms. Longo.

COURT REPORTER:

Thank you.

MR.

MULLIGAN :

That would

-- oh, I'm sorry.

That would be by the licensee, that was written by the licensee.

I t was a document they submitted to NRC.

MS. LONGO:

Thank you.

MR.

MULLIGAN :

So the re-circulation pumps, design accident, double shear type of thing, so it's - - there's an uncertainty could be wi th.

So according to the LER, it says, "The diesel generator set rating was determined to be a continuous rating, 2750 kilowatts continuous.

The overflow [overload]

rating is 3,000 kilowatts for seven days not to exceed NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202)2344433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 2OCX)5-3701 www.nealrgross.c:om

2 3

4 6

7 8

9 1

1 12 13 14 1

16 17 18 19 2

21 22 23 24 25 15 3,025 kilowatts for more than two hours in any 24-hour period."

Then you go and talk about recent inspection, NRC inspection

report, the September component, inspection, and they frame it as - that 8t h would be 05000271-2008-008, September Did I get

-- does everybody understand what I'm saying?

Well, the NRC says the UFSAR further states that the generators can be manually loaded up to 3,000 kilowatts for seven days, and with a short time rating of two-hours at 3,025 kilowatt in any 24-hour period.

So you see there's a shift, there's been a shift where you kind of these extreme overloading of these machines in 1990, that's how they termed it, an overload.

Really, a'regime that you're never supposed to use.

It's just there in case in an accident, and somebody boggled, somebody made a mistake somewhere, and you had an extra amount of design and stuff like that; whereas, the September inspection report shifts it over to well, kind of like a normal operating regime that we tolerate, we allow now, and stuff like that.

I think that's more or less a kind of a fraUd, how that's been allowed to be 'shifted over to from a dire emergency beyond design use of the diesel NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE.*N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www,nealrgross.com

2 3

4 6

7 8

9 1

1 1

13 14 1

16 17 18 19 2

2 22 23 24 25 16 generators to now because we're -- the design load is so high.

We're kind of using wishy-washy language to more or less say that you can operate that machine to 3,000 kilowatts, or 3,025 kilowatts, depending what it is, and stuff like that. My stipulation is the machine is only designed for 2750, and you shouldn' t ever use it over 2750.

And here it is in

1991, per technical specification 4.10.a.l.a.

This section states in part that the diesel generator will be tested at the expected maximum emergency load, not to exceed the continuous rating.

And the inspection report that kind of it allows them to operate that machine when you're manually loading

-- shutting breakers and picking up load manually, essentially allows them to go right up to 3,025.

So, again, they're kind of telling us right here in 1990 that the machine -

I don't know what initially the design rating of that machine was, because I imagine it's been updated, or changed, or something like that, so I don't blOW what the machine -- what is it, 2570, or 2750 when it was

- when the plant first started up, and they fiddled around with some numbers or something like that.

I mean, the final safety analysis report in 1991 says that it's 2467 kilowatts for the maximum (202) 2344433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.w.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.c:om

5 10 15 20 25 17 1

2 3

4 6

7 8

9 11 12 13 14 16 17 18 19 21 22 23 24 emergency load for the diesel generators.

That's 2,500, and now today it's 2750, so I mean, it's just not conservative.

And this thing has changed over the life of the plant.

My theory, I got a Minnesota Bridge theory, or a thumb-rule, and that is in an old component, a bridge, or diesel generator plant, any system, and stuff like that, there's limited gusset reset, and that is that when you're looking over these old machineries and stuff like that, no matter which -- no matter how thoroughly you think you're looking at it, there's always a limiting flaw that's undiscovered.

And it's sitting there, and if you place the load on it, as you re-pave the road and put an extra burden on these machines and stuff like that, or these bridges, that eventually you're going to run into the flaw, and the bridge is going to collapse.

I think wi th the vermont Yankee diesel generators, they're getting old, and stuff like that, so instead of us rationalizing, increasing the high load, we should be kicking it back.

At lease [least] we've got to take it easy with them, they're old, and stuff like that.

There's some flaws in there we might not know, so we've got to make an easier environment on them.

But the older they get, the more we keep paper whipping the engineering, NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., NW.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 W{(W.nealrgross.com

5 10 15 20 25 1

2 3

4 6

7 8

9 11 12 13 14 16 17 18 19 21 22 23 24 18 and we load them up more than they should be and stuff.

So today, as far as I know, the continuous rating is 2750, and it's tested between 2650 and 2750.

Did I go over -- yes, I did.

You know, and even to this recent inspection report, whether it's emergency loads on the buses, or whether it's -- we have manual loads we placed on the machine during an accident, and we don't test them to those -- the highest expected load.

In other words, greater than 2750.

So there's been confusion on what is the rating of the diesel generator from day one, and went on to 1991 when I was trying to, as a licensed operator, there's a lot of stuff I just didn't believe was being honestly and fairly dealt with, and stuff like that back then.

I have, along with this, I

have a further concern that -- I have issues with I have an issue industry-wide with the accuracy of the manufacturer's component or system vendors' consultants and special interest organization with the data they pzovLde to the licensee, or to the NRC.

A lot of that stuff, I don'tsee it.

I don' t see the NRC enforcing the accuracy of the information they provide to the licensee.

Somebody says an outright lie to the licensee, whether the licensee knows it or not, and NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE.*NW.

(202) 234.01433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

5 10 15 20 25 19 1

2 3

4 6

7 8

9 11 12 13 14 16 17 18 19 21 22 23 24 it's to their benefit, I don't think the NRC punishes those vendors ~

or specialists, or manufact.ur-er-s, or vendors.

Once you lie, you're setting up the idea that you're going to lie over and over again.

And if one person gets away with it, organization, then everybody is allowed to do it.

And then we end up with you don't know what you have, stuff like that, so I have a basic concern about that.

MS. LONGO:

Mr. Mulligan, this is Ms. Longo.

Could you please identify what information was inaccurate that was provided by the vendors?

MR. MULLIGAN:

Well, the specific details?

MS. LONGO:

well, you said that the vendors were providing inaccurate information, and the NRC should be concerned about it.

We'd like to ~10W what inaccurate information'were the vendors providing.

MR.

MULLIGAN :

Okay.

This is 1991, so we have to consider that.

But I see things today that essentially shows the same thing.

The manufacturer this is when the LER -- this is the 1991 LER.

The manufacturers recommended limit inspections -- wait a minute.

That's not the right one.

9t h

,Well, in this LER, on April

, 1990, Atomic Energy calculation 836 provided a conservative value of 2751 kilowatts assuming a power factor of eight NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 2344433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

5 10 15 20 25 1

2 3

4 6

7 8

9 11 12 13 14 16 17 18 19 21 22 23 24 20 were larger than -- well, this whole LER basi cal Iy talks about Vermont.Yankee.

There was an inaccuracy with the main plate grading

[rating]

between the generator and the engine.

That's what led to overloading this machine.

And, essentially, there was a lot of talk back and forth between what the capacity of the machine was and stuff like that.

And the first shot if it until they damaged the machine wasn't corrected, so I would say this whole LER that I'm talking about here expresses the idea that a vendor of these machines can corne in here and not give accurate information.

Does that answer your question?

MS. LONGO:

I'm not technical enough to know, but I'm just trying to factually understand what it is you're saying.

Is this inaccuracy still outstanding, or has that changed?

MR.

MULLIGAN:

Well, according to the inspection -- the latest inspection report, there's issues with the loading of the machine and stuff like that.

So as far as the vendors and stuff like that, I mean, I could give you another issue, if you want it, as far.as inaccuracy with a type of vendor or special interest organization.

Do you want another one?

MS. LONGO:

No.

I'm asking you to provide information about your claim of inaccurate information NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.w.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.neab.gross.com

5 10 15 20 25 1

2 3

4 6

7 8

9 11 12 13 14 16 17 18 19 21 22 23 24 21 from the vendor about the rating of this equipment.

MR.

MULLIGAN:

Well, I

don I t have any information other than the LER.

MS. LONGO:

Thank you.

MR. BLOUNT:

Mr. Mulligan, I YJlOW that you were you indicated that you were previously an operator.

MR. MULLIGAN:

I was a licensed operator.

MR. BLOUNT:

A'licensed operator.

Okay.

I understand.

Thank you.

Do you have any other background in this

area, engineering

degree, electrical, or MR. MULLIGAN:

No, I don't.

MR.

BLOUNT:

-- education in that area?

Okay.

MR. MULLIGAN:

And that business with power factor and all that sort of stuff, I

mean it's gobbledy-gook.

I can barely understand it and stuff like that.

But even the -- so everybody knows, in this LER they had troubles with the manufacturer coming up with the

ratings, and vermont Yankee essentially ran these machines at 3200 kilowatts and damaged the -- ran it twice and they ended up damaging

-- I'm trying to get what was damaged, a crack in the cylinder piston, cylinder insert and stuff.

I mean, NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 WHWnealryross.com

5 10 15 20 25 22 1

2 3

4 6

7 8

9 11 12 13 14 16 17 18 19 21 22 23 24 it's in the LER and stuff, and so the machine was damaged.

You see what I'm saying?

MR.

BLOUNT:

We have heard your input, and that'S what we've been looking for.

MR. MULLIGAN:

I still have more to go.

MR. BLOUNT:

Okay.

So we're very interested in getting your insight, but I'd like to let you know that we are on a bit of a time schedule here, so about how much longer do you think you'll need for this, to inform us of your two points MR.

MULLIGAN:

Well, James told me I had about an hour.

MR. KIM:

No, about 15 to 20 minutes.

Sorry if I misinformed you.

MR. BLOUNT:

So, Mr. Mulligan, for clarity's sake MR. MULLIGAN:

Probably another 15 minutes, at most.

I'm just not going to take that much longer.

MR.

BLOUNT:

Okay.

Understand.

So we understand you have about another 15 minutes worth of information relative to this 2.206 petition, and we're looking forward to hearing that.

MR.

MULLIGAN :

So you understand what r im getting at with this LER?

I mean, we're talking about all sorts of - the design of it was in question.

(202) 234-4433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N'w.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005*3701 www.nealrgross.com

5 10 15 20 25 23 1

2 3

4 6

7 8

9 11 12 13 14 16 17 18 19 21 22 23 24 Then an FFFI [ESFI] inspection comes in and these guys panic, and they come up with a new scheme to load the diesel generators to 3200 kilowatts, which was inaccurate, which was wrong.

Then they damaged the machine, then they figured out -- well, then they came

. back and decided that they loaded those machines too high and stuff like that, so then they did an inspection, and they found out that there was damage, and it was related to overloading the maChines, and stuff like that.

My idea here to think about is that 3200 -

well, what is the point where you're going to damage the machines?

Is it going to be 3200?

Nobody thought there would be damage at that level.

Where is the point between 2750 and 3200, where is the point that you're going to end up damaging that machine, getting components to break?

How durable is it going to be in an accident?

What's the level?

We know it was operated twice at 3200 kilowatts.

What's the -- you seem to want to load it, manually load it to 3025.

Well, what's the point where after 3025 that it -

that something breaks on it and stuff like that?

The whole thing is unconservative, as far as I can see.

So I'm setting up the idea that there's been a lot of uncertain inspections, and uncertainty with NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., w<<

(202) 2344433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

5 10 15 20 25 1

2 3

4 6

7 8

9 11 12 13 14 16 17 18 19 21 22 23 24 24 the loads of these machines since the plant started up.

There was in 1990, and there was in 2008.

I mean, I just find it mind-boggling that we're still discussing essentially the same thing in 2008, what is the max.operational load of the diesel generator.

And, supposedly, you're supposed to, if you operate those machines at say 3,000, you're supposed to test it at maximum load, 3025.

And itseems as though vermont Yankee doesn t do that right now.

And I'm I

just browsing my notes.

The Vermont Yankee NRC component design basis inspection report of 2008-008 was done -- well, it was written up on September 26, 2008, so 19 plus --

I

mean, I

think this mind-boggling.

The diesel generator set rating was designed to be continuous rating.

This is 1991, 2750 kilowatts continuous.

The continuous to me, that means that's the normal max high load diesel generator - the safe load of the diesel generator.

Anything above 2750 is unsafe, it's unconservative.

This overload

rating, that's supposedly 3,000 kilowatts for seven days not to exceed 3,025 kilowatts for more than' two hours in a 24-hour period.

That's that additional beyond design, beyond the max rating of the machine, but it's designed in the diesel generator for durability and NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRAf.lSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 2344433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701

¥l'IiWnealrgross.com

5 10 15 20 25 25 1

2 3

4 6

7 8

9 11 12 13 14 16 17 18 19 21 22 23 24 reliability, something unexpected.

You know, some of this gusset stuff that might be present, some of this bad engineering that s gone on throughout the I

time of Vermont Yankee with these machines and stuff like that.

So that's how it was expressed in 1991.

How the NRC expresses it, it is -- they twist it to the point where oh, well, the 3,000 kilowatts for sev~n days, the two hours at 3,025 kilowatts in a 24 hour2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> period, they shift it.

It's kind of word games, where now okay, that's the normal regime, operating regime of the machine, and stuff like that.

And you ding them because they don't test it at 3,025 kilowatts.

And, again, I

get to the point well, you've damaged the machine at 3,200 kilowatts.

Where's the point where it's -- you're going to damage the machine, it I s going to break when you need it the most?

It should be noted -- it's amazing, 3,000 kilowatts for seven days not to exceed 3,025 kilowatts for more than two hours in a 24-hour period.

You see how much -- you know, from 3,000 to 3,025, that is such a

minuscule percentage of the load of the machine, and it's only 25 kilowatts additional, and stuff like that.

You see how you can operate it for seven days at 3,000, and then all of a sudden you can NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON. D.C. 20005-3701 WYM.nealrgross.com

5 10 15 20 25 26 1

2 3

4 6

7 8

9 11 13 14 16 17 18 19 21 22 23 24 operate it at 3,025 for more than two hours in a 24 hour2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> period.

so, again, I mean, it's ridiculous that there is such a restriction that 3,025 for more than two hours, that's an extreme - - you can only operate it for two hours in any 24-hour period.

But if you -

you can operate it for seven days if it's 3,000 kilowatts.

I mean, you can't even probably see that in the meter up in the control room it's such a small additional kilowatt thing.

It's baffling that it has such a restriction there like that.

You know, the inspection report says at the discretion of the operators.

That wasn't there in 1990-91.

I'd like to know what that at the discretion 0 f the operators, why that was added.

Am I' rn just curious why that was added.

And then you go into the team also found the motor kilowatt load was developed non-conservatively in the calculation that determined that EG load for the design basis event.

I mean, you it says you inspected two motor load kilowatt load -- motor kilowatt load.

Out of all of the plant, you discovered I don't know how many out of what percentage, you found two that was inaccurate and stuff like that.

I don't understand why the lffiC when they seen all this confusion with this machine over so NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPOATERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 2344433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgrcss.com

5 10 15 20 25 1

2 3

4 6

7 8

9 11 12 13 14 16 17 18 19 21 22 23 24 27 many years, once they found the kilowatt loads, they should have went and did an inspection on all of the loads to make sure the calculations were accurate.

I mean, that would have been the way you should have handled it.

The inspection report -- however, the team found that the 3,025 kilowatt hour load was not calculated as an appropriate acceptance limit in the EDG test procedure.

In other words, you I re kind of saying well, seeing as how the procedure says you can manually load the diesels up to 3,025, you should test the machines at -- I mean, that's the only logical way you could think about it, if they're going to use that machine in an emergency situation.

Can you imagine kind of an emergency situation if they have to load that machine to 3,025.

They expect it in the procedure because it S in there, and then you could I

hit a point well, 3,025 -

well, we know that damage occurs.

How durable is those diesel generators, 3,025, 3,200 we know for a fact operated twice caused damage in the machine back in 1991.

It's older now, and stuff like that, so the idea that you're 90ing to be using that machine at 3,025 is mind-bogglin9.

MR. BLOUNT:

Mr. Mulligan, this is Torn Blount again.

Based on our last time check, I believe you (202) 234-4433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISlAND AVE., N.W.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005*3701 www.nealrgross.com

5 10 15 20 25 28 1

2 3

4 6

7 8

9 11 12 13 14 16 17 18 19' 21 22 23 24 have about five more minutes.

MR. MULLIGAN:

Thank you.

MR. BLOUNT:

You're welcome.

MR. MULLIGAN:

You know this business here, while the team noted that Entergy is not committed to either the regulatory guide or the IEEE standards, the current EDG testing does not properly demonstrate that the EDG system will perform in accordance with the requirement, and the acceptance limits contained in the applicable design documentation.

I mean, does the NRC have one set of codes talking about loading diesel generators throughout the industry?

Is it just -- I mean, I hope you've just got one set of codes.

Everybody doesn't have a special code.

You know, everybody gets to pick and choose their codes on what would be considered a design load of a diesel generator, as-built design capacity, or the bus loads, how you come up with what the bus loads are.

So the A diesel generator is at around 2,700 and the B diesel generator emergency loads is at 2,880.

I mean, if it's 2695, whatever it is, I mean, if it comes I

mean, that's a minuscule level between design continuous rating of the diesel generator, 2750.

I find that mind-boggling.

There (202) 2344433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE" N.W.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

5 10 15 20 25 29 1

2 3

4 6

7 8

9 11 12 13 14 16 17 18 19 21 22 23 24 was no conservative, conservation, conservatism with that number.

I don't think the machines are too

small, they're not conservative for their nuclear safety duties.

The 2800 is - of course, it's more than 2750.

And I

don't understand this.

All this trouble with these diesel generators, over all these years, the confusion, not knowing what the load is, or you don't know what the capacity of the diesel generator is, this shifting of capacities behind the scenes that hasn't come up -- hasn't been up front and talked about.

I mean, this drives me nuts.

And then it says traditional - on this last inspection report traditional enforcement does not apply because the issue did not have any actual safety consequences or potential for impacting NRC regular

[regulatory]

function, and was not the result of willful violation of NRC requirements, even if they occurred repeatedly over many decades.

It baffles me.

I guess that's about it for me..

MR. BLOUNT:

Thank you, Mr. Mulligan.

This is Tom Blount, again.

As noted earlier, no NRC decisions regarding the merits of the petition request will be made during this meeting.

Subsequent to this meeting, the PRE will conduct an internal meeting to NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISlAND AYEo, NoW.

(202) 2344433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005*3701 wwwonealrgross.com

5 10 15 20 25 30 1

2 3

4 6

7 8

9 11 12 13 14 16 17 18 19 21 22 23 24' make a final recommendation on whether to accept or reject the petition for review.

The results of that meeting will be documented in an acknowledgment letter to the Petitioner.

At this time, does the. staff that's here in headquarters have any questions for the Petitioner?

MR. MULLIGAN:

Before -- I just want a couple of sentences here.

I don't think I'm supposed to be making a petition to the Government of the United States.

I mean, essentially this is what: this is about.

One lonely guy, and then. you've got to go through this Petition Review Board type of thing.

The whole thing is set up that there's not transparency.

I don I t have the information beforehand.

I'm not given the information.

Then what you guys are going to tell me is well, Mike, you don't got no evidence.

You got no proof or anything like that.

Well, I don't have no proof, because nobody allows me to enforce transparency requirements on the NRC and the utility, and stuff like that.

So this petition thing, it'S an abuse.

It really is an abuse, because you don't give a honest little guy that's trying to petiti.on this government to find out flaws, and try and discuss a lot of these issues.

You don't give them the opportunity to have information in front of them (202) 2344433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., NW.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005*3701

5 10 15 20 25 31 1

2 3

4 6

7 8

9 11 12 13 14 16 17 18 19 21 22 23 24 before he makes the petition.

Everybody plays the game well, Mike, you don't have the evidence and stuff like that.

And then you put an unbelievable burden, a security sense around there, and nobody wants to talk to me, nobody wants to talk about these issues, or provide the papers and stuff like this.

So this petition, this 2.206, this is a sham-type of thing.

It S meant to brush more people off than it is to I

create an open dialogue of how these problems are happening.

Why do they happen over so many decades?

And to kind of get around to figuring out why there are still a lot of problems in the nuclear industry, as the whole thing.

Thank you.

I'm done.

MR. BLOUNT:

Thank you, Mr. Mulligan, again.

Any questions from headquarter. staff of the Petitioner?

Any questions of the Petitioner from the region?

REGION REPRESENTATIVE:

NO.

MR..BLOUNT:

Thank you.

Any questions from the licensee?

LICENSEE REPRESENTATIVE:

No.

MR. BLOUNT:

Thank you.

And, 11r. Mulligan, once

again, do you have any final questi.ons or comments?

MR. MULLIGAN:

You know, I've watched these NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., NW.

(202) 2344433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005*3701 www.nealrgross.com

5 10 15 20 25 1

2 3

4 6

7 8

9 11 12 13 14 16 17 18 19 21 22

. 23 24 32 petition things over numerous times, and the same

old, nobody has any questions type of responses.

Everybody has no questions.

And, again, that's a indication that the 2.206 is an industry-sponsored process.

It's designed to protect the industry and the NRC.

It is not designed to serve a little guy trying to figure out what I s going wrong at Vermont

Yankee, 1.5 miles away from his house, and keep everybody straight on what I s going on at the plant within the NRC.

I mean, that's supposed to be, I

mean, on a worldwide basis to a little guy like me to be able to petition their government, this is what this is, one guy petitioning his government to find out what's going on.

I mean, that's a privilege on a worldwide basis in the United States.

The privilege is to live in the united States, but as far as this NRC petition process, I think it's an abomination.

MR.

BLOUNT:

I wish to thank the Petitioner for his time to provide the NRC with clarifying information on the petition you've just submitted.

With that, I conclude the meeting, and we are going to secure the telephone connection.

Thank you.

MR. MULLIGAN:

Thank you for your time.

MR. BLOUNT:

Thank you.

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., w<<

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 WWWJ,ealrgross.com

33 1

2 3

4 (Whereupon, the above-entitled matter went off the record at 10:55 a.m.)

NEALR. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., NW.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005*3701 WNWJlIlalrgross.com