ML083400301
| ML083400301 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Vermont Yankee File:NorthStar Vermont Yankee icon.png |
| Issue date: | 11/25/2008 |
| From: | Division of Policy and Rulemaking |
| To: | |
| References | |
| 2.206, NRC-2560 | |
| Download: ML083400301 (34) | |
Text
Vermont Yankee 2.206 Petition
Title:
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
5 6
7 8
9 12 13 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION PETITION REVIEW BOARD TELECONFERENCE In the Matter of:
VERMONT YANKEE 10 CFR 2.206 PETITION FROM MICHAEL MULLIGAN Docket No.
50-271
- Tuesday, November 25, 2008 10:05 a.m.
BEFORE:
TOM BLOUNT, Petition Review Board Chairman Deputy Director of Policy and Rule Making, NRR JAMES 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) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealross.comn v
2 I
NRC HEADQUARTERS STAFF:
2 MARK KOWAL, NRR 3
ROY MATTHEW, NRR 4
JOHN McHALE, NRR 5
STACY ROSENBERG, NRR 6
ROBERT WOLFGAN, NRR 7
G.S.
- MATHARU, NRR 8
9 NRC REGION I STAFF:
10 LAWRENCE T. DOERFLEIN 11 JOHN ROGGE 12 AMI RAO 13 14 PETITIONER:
15 MICHAEL MULLIGAN, Petitioner 16 17 LICENSEE ENTERGY PERSONNEL 18 DAVID MANNAI 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com o
3 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 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 o
v
4 1
P-R-O-C-E-E-D-I-N-G-S 2
(10:05 a.m.)
3 MR.
BLOUNT:
Good morning and welcome to 4
the NRC meeting regarding the 2.206 petition request 5
submitted regarding the Vermont Yankee nuclear power 6
plant in Vermont.
7 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 11 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, 20 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
.25 request.
No decisions regarding the merits of this NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
5 1
petition will be made at this meeting.
2 Following this
- meeting, the Petition 3
Review Board will conduct internal deliberations to 4
determine if there is a need to modify its initial 5
recommendations.
The outcome of this internal meeting 6
will be documented in a letter to the Petitioner.
7 I would like to summarize the scope of the 8
petition under consideration and the NRC activities to 9
date.
On September 2 8 th,
- 2008, Mr.
Michael Mulligan 10 submitted to the NRC a petition under 2.206 regarding 11 issues of uncertainty of not having a common mode 12 failure with the emergency diesel generators at 13 Vermont Yankee.
14 On November 1 3 th,
- 2008, the Petitioner 15 provided supplemental information via email for the 16 PRB to consider.
In this petition request, Mr.
17 Mulligan requested that the
- NRC, one, reduce the 18 functional and operational load testing limits for the 19 emergency diesel generators to the old limit.
- Two, 2
conduct a detailed inspection of both Vermont Yankee 2
diesel generators based on the past common mode diesel 22 generators function failures of components in the 23 machines.'
24 Allow me to discuss the NRC activities to 25 date.
On November 1 2th, the NRR Petition Review Board NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
6 1
met to review the petition against the acceptance 2
criteria in Management Directive 8.11, and discuss the 3
need for any NRC actions related to the Vermont Yankee 4
nuclear power plant.
5 Based on the information submitted in the 6
petition, the PRB made an initial determination not to 7
accept the petition for review under the 2.206 8
petition review process because the petition request 9
did not set forth sufficient facts to constitute a 1
basis for reducing the functional and operational load 11 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 15 Yankee diesel generators because this request is not 16 an enforcement-type action.
17 Following the November 1 2 th 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 21 made available the opportunity for the Petitioner to 22 address the PRB.
23 MR.
MULLIGAN:
I don't really think he 24 said -- he really didn't say that it wasn't accepted.
25 Just that for accuracy sake.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 2344433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
7 1
COURT REPORTER:
Excuse me.
Is t~his Mr.
2 Mulligan?
3 MR.
MULLIGAN:
Yes.
4 COURT REPORTER:
Thank you.
5
~
MR. MULLIGAN:
You know, he really didn'It 6
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 10 sake, that's the way I interpreted it.
Go ahead.
11 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.
15 Again, the purpose of the meeting today is 16 to provide the Petitioner with an opportunity 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 20 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.
25 No decision regarding the merits of the 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 1
petition request will be made during this meeting.
2 Subsequent to the meeting, the PRB will conduct an 3
internal meeting to make a final recommendation on 4
whether to accept or reject the petitions for review.
5 The results of that meeting will be documented in an 6
acknowledgment letter to the Petitioner.
7 The Petition Review Board typically 8
consists of a Chairman, usually an SES level manager 9
at the agency.
It has a Petition Manager, which for 1
plant-specific petition is usually the Licensing 11 Project Manager.
Other members of the Board are 12 determined by the NRC staff based on the content of 13 the information in the petition request.
14 At this time, I'd like to introduce the 15
- Board, and then turn the meeting over to the 16 Petitioner.
I am Tom Blount, the Petition Review 17 Board Chairman.
James Kim is the Petition Manager for 18 the petition under discussion.
Tanya Mensah is the 19 Office's 2.206 coordinator.
In
- addition, we have 2
Larry Doerflein from the NRC's regional office on the 21 Petition Review Board.
We also obtain advice from our 22 Office of General Counsel, represented by Jenny Longo.
23 As described in our process, the NRC Staff 24 may ask clarifying questions in order to better 25 understand the Petitioner's presentation, and to reach NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
9 1
a reasoned decision whether to accept or reject the 2
Petitioner's request for review under the 2.206 3
process.
4 I will note that Entergy, the licensee for 5
the Vermont Yankee nuclear power plant, has also been 6
invited to this meeting, and will be afforded an 7
opportunity to ask clarifying questions of the 8
Petitioner.
For clarification, the licensee is not 9
part of the decision making process or the NRC's 10 review of the 2.206 petition.
We invite the licensee 11 so that they are aware of the ongoing request for 12 action against their
- facility, and provide an 13 opportunity to ask any questions so that they may 14 understand the details pertaining to their facility.
15 Are there any general questions regarding 16 the 2.206 process before I
turn it over to the 17 Petitioner?
Very well, hearing none -
as a reminder 18 for the phone participants, please identify yourself 19 if you make any remarks as this will help us in the 20 preparation of the meeting transcript that will be 21 made publicly available.
Thank you.
22 Mr. Mulligan, please provide your comments 23 at this time.
24 MR.
MULLIGAN:
Thank you.
25 I'd like to remind everybody that we've NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 2344433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.realrgross.com
10 1
had an election here.
we're electing the first black 2
President, all of our political Congress is-3 Democrats and stuff like that, there's just been a 4
change of directions as far as that's concerned.
I'd 5
also like to remind everybody that we're facing a 6
depression-like era, and there could be a lot of 7
pressures on a lot of these utilities with financing 8
and cutting back on types of costs and stuff like 9
that.
I'd just like to have everybody aware of that.
10 When I was talking to James, I basically 11 made an addendum to my initial thing.
I recognize 12 that Vermont Yankee hadn't tested diesels above 2750, 13 but my --
but I'm going to say now that those diesels 14 aren't conservative.
They never were conservative.
15 The whole thing with how they came about coming up 16 with these load limits for the diesel generator is 17 mind-boggling, to say the least.
18 my idea of a ideal generator and load 19 would be a generator that has 1,000 kilowatts of load.
20 As to the design of this machine, that's a. normal 21 continuous design of the machihe, so it would --
so 22 the max load, normal load would be 1,000 kilowatts.
23 So you'd have a design accident, like at Vermont 24 Yankee, of load of --
I would say that should be about 25 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 1
machine, so the accident load should approach about 75 2
percent of the machine capacity, 750 kilowatts.
3 You should never allow in any accident 4
condition that you shut a breaker on, stuff like that.
5 You should always depend upon 1,000 kilowatt load 6
design, machine load of diesel generators.
7
- Now, because it's a critical piece of 8
power equipment for a nuclear power plant, we should 9
build those machines beyond durable.
They should be 1C designed to take up an additional level, say maybe 11 between 10-20 percent, so you should --
all the design 12 accidents and stuff should always be 1,000 kilowatts 13 or less.
14 You should have an extra set of durability 15 and reliability by designing the machine to pick up an 16 additional 10 or 20 percent above 1,000 kilowatts.
17 That's conservative.
You design these machines that 18 you can really beat the heck out of them if something 19 was to go wrong and unexpected, a calculation was not 2
understood, or not carried out, or somebody made a 21 human error, or something like that, you just want a 22 level of conservatism with these machines, because 23 they're such an important piece of equipment for 24 nuclear safety.
25 Now, the first LER we'll talk about: is the NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.oom
12 1 one in 1991 where they --
oh, back up a second.
I 2
already said --
to talk about the LER in 1991.
At the 3
time, I was an employee at Vermont Yankee.
I was a 4
licensed operator, and I was performing the auxiliary 5
operator job, and I was coming in and out of that --
6 those emergency diesel generator rooms twice a shift 7
or more, and stuf f like that, did a lot of work on 8
those diesel generators.
9 At the time frame of 1990-91, 1 was having 1
grave concerns with truth-telling, and honesty, and 11 stuff, and so I've raised a num~ber of whistle blower 12 issues, and stuff like that.
I want you to know for a 13 number of years, f or many years, a decade or more, I 14 would walk in and out of those machine rooms and there 15 would be roof leaks, and there'd be water leaking down 16 on the engine.
There'd be plastic sheets.
There'd be 17 water leaking down on the control panel.
There would 18 be water leaking down on the engine.
There was water 19 marks on the generator itself, part of it, anid stuff 2
like that, so I started raising a lot of ruckus 21 internally and with the NRC.
And I had a really 22 difficult time getting people to pay attention to what 23 I was saying.
So I'Id come in there in the winters, 24 and the summers with thunderstorms and stuff, and I'd 25 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, 5
marks and stuff like that.
So that generally sets up 6
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 10
[Brattleboro]
Reformer
- story, talks about building 1i 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 15 Service put the construction cost at $220 million, 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 with 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'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) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.oom
14 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 1
17 18 19 20 21 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:
I'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.
It 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 with.
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. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
15 1
3,025 kilowatts for more than two hours in any 24-hour 2
period."
3 Then you go and talk about recent 4
inspection, NRC inspection
- report, the September 5
component. inspection, and they frame it as that 6
would be 05000271-2008-008, September 8th.
Did I get 7
does everybody understand what I'm saying?
- Well, 8
the NRC says the UFSAR further states that the 9
generators can be manually loaded up to 3,000 1
kilowatts for seven days, and with a short time rating 1
of two-hours at 3,025 kilowatt in any 24-hour period.
12 So you see there's a shift, there's been a shift 13 where you kind of these extreme overloading of 14 these machines in 1990, that's how they termed it, an 15 overload.
Really, a-regime that you're never supposed 16 to use.
It's just there in case in an accident, and 17 somebody boggled, somebody made a mistake somewhere, 18 and you had an extra amount of design and stuff like 19 that; whereas, the September inspection report shifts 2
it over to well, kind of like a normal operating 21 regime that we tolerate, we allow now, and stuff like 22 that.
23 I think that's more or less a kind of a 24 fraud, how that's been allowed to be'shifted over to 25 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 v
16 1
generators to now because we're -- the design load is 2
so high.
We're kind of using wishy-washy language to 3
more or less say that you can operate that machine to 4
3,000 kilowatts, or 3,025 kilowatts, depending what it 5
is, and stuff like that. My stipulation is the machine 6
is only designed for 2750, and you shouldn't ever use 7
it over 2750.
8 And here it is in
- 1991, per technical 9
specification 4.10.a.l.a.
This section states in part 10 that the diesel generator will be tested at the 1i expected maximum emergency load, not to exceed the 12 continuous rating.
And the inspection report that 13 kind of --
it allows them to operate that machine when 14 you're manually loading
-- shutting breakers and 15 picking up load manually, essentially allows them to 16 go right up to 3,025.
So,
- again, they're kind of 17 telling us right here in 1990 that the machine -
I 18 don't know what initially the design rating of that 19 machine was, because I imagine it's been updated, or 20 changed, or something like that, so I don't know what 21 the machine -- what is it, 2570, or 2750 when it was -
22
- when the plant first started up, and they fiddled 23 around with some numbers or something like that.
24 I mean, the final safety analysis report in 25 1991 says that it's 2467 kilowatts for the maximum NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
17 1
emergency load for the diesel generators.
That's 2
2,500, and now today it's 2750, so I mean, it's just 3
not conservative. And this thing has changed over the 4
life of the plant.
5 My theory, I got a Minnesota Bridge theory, 6
or a thumb-rule, and that is in an old component, a 7
bridge, or diesel generator plant, any system, and 8
stuff like that, there's limited gusset reset, and 9
that is that when you're looking over these old 10 machineries and stuff like that, no matter which --
no 11 matter how thoroughly you think you're looking at it, 12 there's always a limiting flaw that's undiscovered.
13 And it's sitting there, and if you place the load on 14 it, as you re-pave the road and put an extra burden on 15 these machines and stuff like that, or these bridges, 16 that eventually you're going to run into the fl~aw, and 17 the bridge is going to collapse.
I think with the 18 Vermont Yankee diesel generators, they're getting old, 19 and stuff like that, so instead of us rationalizing, 20 increasing the high load, we should be kicking it 21 back.
At lease [least] we've got to take it easy with 22 them, they're old, and stuff like that.
There's some 23 flaws in there we might not know, so we've got to make 24 an easier environment on them.
But the older they 25 get, the more we keep paper whipping the engineering, NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.iiealrgross.com
18 1
and we load them up more than they should be and 2
stuff.
3 So today, as far as I know, the continuous 4
rating is 2750, and it's tested between 2650 and 2750.
5 Did I go over --
- yes, I did.
You know, and even to 6
this recent inspection report, whether it's emergency 7
loads on the buses, or whether it's we have manual 8
loads we placed on the machine during an accident, and 9
we don't test them to those --
the highest expected 10 load.
In other words, greater than 2750.
So there's 11 been confusion on what is the rating of the diesel 12 generator from day one, and went on to 1991 when I was 13 trying to, as a licensed operator, there's a lot of 14 stuff I just didn't believe was being honestly and 15 fairly dealt with, and stuff like that back then.
16 I
- have, along with this, I have a further 17 concern that --
I have issues with --
I have an issue 18 industry-wide with the accuracy of the manufacturer's 19 component or system vendors' consultants and special 20 interest organization with the data they provide to 21 the licensee, or to the NRC.
A lot of that stuff, I 22 don't see it.
I don't see the NRC enforcing the 23 accuracy of the information they provide to the 24 licensee.
Somebody says an outright lie to the 25 licensee, whether the licensee knows it or not, and NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
19 1
it's to their benefit, I don't think the NRC punishes 2
those vendors, or specialists, or manufacturers, or 3
vendors.
Once you lie, you're setting up the idea 4
that you're going to lie over and over again.
And if 5
one person gets away with it, organization, then 6
everybody is allowed to do it.
And then we end up 7
with you don't know what you have, stuff like that, so 8
I have a basic concern about that.
9 MS.
LONGO:
Mr. Mulligan, this is Ms.
Longo.
10 Could you please identify what information was 11 inaccurate that was provided by the vendors?
12 MR.
MULLIGAN:
Well, the specific details?
13 MS.
LONGO:
Well, you said that the vendors 14 were providing inaccurate information, and the NRC 15 should be concerned about it.
We'd like to know what 16 inaccurate information were the vendors providing.
17 MR.
MULLIGAN:
Okay.
This is
- 1991, so we 18 have to consider that.
But I see things today that 19 essentially shows the same thing.
The manufacturer -
20 this is when the LER -- this is the 1991 LER.
The 21 manufacturers recommended limit inspections -- wait a 22 minute.
That's not the right one.
23
- Well, in this LER, on April 9 th, 1990, Atomic 24 Energy calculation 836 provided a conservative value 25 of 2751 kilowatts assuming a power factor of eight NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
20 1
were larger than --
well, this whole LER basically 2
talks about Vermont Yankee.
There was an inaccuracy 3
with the main plate grading [rating]
between the 4
generator and the engine.
That's what led to 5
overloading this machine. And, essentially, there was 6
a lot of talk back and forth between what the capacity 7
of the machine was and stuff like that.
And the first 8
shot if it until they damaged the machine wasn't 9
corrected, so I would say this whole LER that I 'm 10 talking about here expresses the idea that a vendor of 11 these machines can come in here and not give accurate 12 information.
Does that answer your question?
13 MS. LONGO:
I'm not technical enough to know, 14 but I'm just trying to factually understand what it is 15 you're saying.
Is this inaccuracy still outstanding, 16 or has that changed?
17 MR.
MULLIGAN:
- Well, according to the 18 inspection --
the latest inspection report, there's 19 issues with the loading of the machine and stuff like 20 that.
So as far as the vendors and stuff like that, I 21 mean, I could give you another issue, if you want it, 22 as far.as inaccuracy with a type of vendor or special 23 interest organization. Do you want another one?
24 MS. LONGO:
No.
I'm asking you to provide 25 information about your claim of inaccurate information NEALMR.GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
21 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 from the vendor about the rating of this equipment.
MR.
MULLIGAN:
- Well, I
don't have any information other than the LER.
MS.
LONGO:
Thank you.
MR.
BLOUNT:
Mr.
- Mulligan, I know that you were you indicated that you were previously an operator.
MR.
MR.
MULLIGAN:
I was a licensed operator.
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 arid 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 www.nealrgross.com
22 1
it's in the LER and stuff, and so the machine was 2
damaged. You see what I'm saying?
3 MR.
BLOUNT:
We have heard your input, and 4
that's what we've been looking for.
5 MR. MULLIGAN:
I still have more to go.
6 MR. BLOUNT:
Okay.
So we're very interested 7
in getting your insight, but I'd like to let you know 8
that we are on a bit of a time schedule here, so about 9
how much longer do you think you'll need for this, to 10 inform us of your two points -
11 MR. MULLIGAN:
Well, James told me I had 12 about an hour.
13 MR. KIM:
No, about 15 to 20 minutes.
Sorry 14 if I misinformed you.
15 MR. BLOUNT:
So, Mr. Mulligan, for clarity's 16 sake-17 MR. MULLIGAN:
Probably another 15 minutes, 18 at most.
I'm just not going to take that much longer.
19 MR. BLOUNT:
Okay.
Understand.
So we 20 understand you have about another 15 minutes worth of 21 information relative to this 2.206 petition, and we're 22 looking forward to hearing that.
23 MR. MULLIGAN:
So you understand what I'm 24 getting at with this LER? I mean, we're talking about 25 all sorts of the design of it was in question.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 2344433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
23 1
Then an FFFI [ESFI] inspection comes in and these guys 2
panic, and they come up with a new scheme to load the 3
diesel generators to 3200 kilowatts, which was 4
inaccurate, which was wrong.
Then they damaged the 5
machine, then they figured out --
well, then they came 6
back and decided that they loaded those machines too 7
high and stuff like that, so then they did an 8
inspection, and they found out that there was damage, 9
and it was related to overloading the machines, and 10 stuff like that.
11 my idea here to think about is that 3200 --
12 well, what is the point where you're going to damage 13 the machines?
Is it going to be 3200? Nobody thought 14 there would be damage at that level.
Where is the 15 point between 2750 and 3200, where is the point that 16 you're going to end up damaging that machine, getting 17 components to break? How durable is it going to be in 18 an accident?
What's the level?
We know it was 19 operated twice at 3200 kilowatts.
What's the --
you 20 seem to want to load it, manually load it to 3025.
21 Well, what's the point where after 3025 that it --
22 that something breaks on it and stuff like that?
The 23 whole thing is unconservative, as far as I can see.
24 So I'm setting up the idea that there's been 25 a lot of uncertain inspections, and uncertainty with NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
24 1
the loads of these machines since the plant started 2
up.
There was in
- 1990, and there was in 2008.
I 3
- mean, I just find it mind-boggling that we're still 4
discussing essentially the same thing in 2008, what is 5
the max operational load of the diesel generator.
6
- And, supposedly, you're supposed to, if you operate 7
those machines at say 3,000, you're supposed to test 8
it at maximum load, 3025.
And it seems as though 9
Vermont Yankee doesn't do that right now.
And I'm 10 just browsing my notes.
11 The Vermont Yankee NRC component design basis 12 inspection report of 2008-008 was done -- well, it was 13 written up on September 26,
- 2008, so 19 plus I
14
- mean, I
think this mind-boggling.
The diesel 15 generator set rating was designed to be continuous 16 rating.
This is 1991, 2750 kilowatts continuous.
The 17 continuous to me, that means that's the normal max 18 high load diesel generator the safe load of the 19 diesel generator.
Anything above 2750 is unsafe, it's 20 unconservative.
This overload
- rating, that's 21 supposedly 3,000 kilowatts for seven days not to 22 exceed 3,025 kilowatts for more than two hours in a
23 24-hour period.
That's that additional beyond design, 24 beyond the max rating of the
- machine, but it's 25 designed in the diesel generator for durability and NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www nealrgross.com
25 1
reliability, something unexpected.
You know, some 2
of this gusset stuff that might be present, some of 3
this bad engineering that's gone on throughout the 4
time of Vermont Yankee with these machines and stuff 5
like that.
So that's how it was expressed in 1991.
6 How the NRC expresses it, it is they twist it to 7
the point where oh,
- well, the 3,000 kilowatts for 8
seven days, the two hours at 3,025 kilowatts in a 24-9 hour period, they shift it.
It's kind of word games, 10 where now okay, that's the normal regime, operating 11 regime of the machine, and stuff like that.
And you 12 ding them because they don't test it at 3,025 13 kilowatts.
- And, again, I
get to the point well, 14 you've damaged the machine at 3,200 kilowatts.
15 Where's the point where it's
-- you're going to damage 16 the machine, it's going to break when you need it the 17 most?
18 It should be noted it's
- amazing, 3,000 19 kilowatts for seven days not to exceed 3,025 kilowatts 20 for more than two hours in a 24-hour period.
You see 21 how much you know, from 3,000 to 3,025, that is 22 such a
minuscule percentage of the load of the 23
- machine, and it's only 25 kilowatts additional, and 24 stuff like that.
You see how you can operate it for 25 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 wwwealrgross.aom
26 1
operate it at 3,025 for more than two hours in a 24-2 hour period.
So, again, I mean, it's ridiculous that 3
there is such a restriction that 3,025 for more than 4
two hours, that's an extreme -- you can only operate 5
it for two hours in any 24-hour period.
But if you --
6 you can operate it for seven days if it's 3,000 7
kilowatts.
I mean, you can't even probably see that 8
in the meter up in the control room it's such a small 9
additional kilowatt thing.
It's baffling that it has 10 such a restriction there like that.
11 You know, the inspection report says at the 12 discretion of the operators.
That wasn't there in 13 1990-91.
I'd like to know what that at the discretion 14 of the operators, why that was added.
Am I'm just 15 curious why that was added.
16 And then you go into the team also found the 17 motor kilowatt load was developed non-conservatively 18 in the calculation that determined that EG load for 19 the design basis event.
I mean, you --
it says you 20 inspected two motor load kilowatt load motor 21 kilowatt load.
Out of all of the
- plant, you 22 discovered I
don't know how many out of what 23 percentage, you found two that was inaccurate and 24 stuff like that.
I don't understand why the NRC when 25 they seen all this confusion with this machine over so NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 2344433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
27 1
many years, once they found the kilowatt loads, they 2
should have went and did an inspection on all of the 3
loads to make sure the calculations were accurate.
I 4
- mean, that would have been the way you should have 5
handled it.
6 The inspection report
- however, the team 7
found that the 3,025 kilowatt hour load was not 8
calculated as an appropriate acceptance limit in the 9
EDG test procedure.
In other words, you're kind of 10 saying well, seeing as how the procedure says you can 11 manually load the diesels up to 3,025, you should test 12 the machines at --
I mean, that's the only logical way 13 you could think about it, if they're going to use that 14 machine in an emergency situation.
Can you imagine 15 kind of an emergency situation if they have to load 16 that machine to 3,025.
They expect it in the 17 procedure because it's in
- there, and then you could 18 hit a point well, 3,025 - well, we know that damage 19 occurs.
How durable is those diesel generators, 20 3,025, 3,200 we know for a fact operated twice caused 21 damage in the machine back in 1991.
It's older now, 22 and stuff like that, so the idea that you're going to 23 be using that machine at 3,025 is mind-boggling.
24 MR.
BLOUNT:
Mr. Mulligan, this is Tom Blount 25 again.
Based on our last time check, I believe you NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
28 1
have about five more minutes.
2 MR.
MULLIGAN:
Thank you.
3 MR.
BLOUNT:
You're welcome.
4 MR.
MULLIGAN:
You know this business here, 5
while the team noted that Entergy is not committed to 6
either the regulatory guide or the IEEE standards, the 7
current EDG testing does not properly demonstrate that 8
the EDG system will perform in accordance with the 9
requirement, and the acceptance limits contained in 10 the applicable design documentation.
11 I mean, does the NRC have one set of codes 12 talking about loading diesel generators throughout the 13 industry?
Is it just --
I mean, I hope you've just 14 got one set of codes.
Everybody doesn't have a
15 special code.
You know, everybody gets to pick and 16 choose their codes on what would be considered a
17 design load of a diesel generator, as-built design 18 capacity, or the bus loads, how you come up with what 19, the bus loads are.
20 So the A diesel generator is at around 2,700 21 and the B diesel generator emergency loads is at 22 2,880.
I mean, if it's 2695, whatever it is, I mean, 23 if it comes I
- mean, that's a
minuscule level 24 between design continuous rating of the diesel 25 generator, 2750.
I find that mind-boggling.
There NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
29 1
was no conservative, conservation, conservatism with 2
that number.
I don't think the machines are too 3
- small, they're not conservative for their nuclear 4
safety duties.
The 2800 is of course, it's more 5
than 2750.
6 And I
don't understand this.
All this 7
trouble with these diesel generators, over all these 8
years, the confusion, not knowing what the load is, or 9
you don't know what the capacity of the diesel 10 generator is, this shifting of capacities behind the 11 scenes that hasn't come up -- hasn't been up front and 12 talked about.
I mean, this drives me nuts.
And then 13 it says traditional -
on this last inspection report -
14 traditional enforcement does not apply because the 15 issue did not have any actual safety consequences or 16 potential for impacting NRC regular
[regulatory]
17 function, and was not the result of willful violation 18 of NRC requirements, even if they occurred repeatedly 19 over many decades.
It baffles me.
20 I guess that's about it for me.
21 MR.
BLOUNT:
Thank you, Mr.
Mulligan.
This 22 is Tom
- Blount, again.
As noted earlier, no NRC 23 decisions regarding the merits of the petition request 24 will be made during this meeting.
Subsequent to this 25 meeting, the PRB will conduct an internal meeting to NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
30 1
make a final recommendation on whether to accept or 2
reject the petition for review.
The results of that 3
meeting will be documented in an acknowledgment letter 4
to the Petitioner.
5 At this time, does the, staff that's here in 6
headquarters have any questions for the Petitioner?
7 MR.
MULLIGAN:
Before --
I just want a couple 8
of sentences here.
I don't think I'm supposed to be 9
making a petition to the Government of the United 10 States.
I
- mean, essentially this is what this is 11 about.
One lonely guy, and then you've got to go 12 through this Petition Review Board type of thing.
The 13 whole thing is set up that there's not transparency.
14 I
don't have the information beforehand.
I'm not 15 given the information.
Then what you guys are going 16 to tell me is well, Mike, you don't got no evidence.
17 You got no proof or anything like that.
- Well, I don't 18 have no proof, because nobody allows me to enforce 19 transparency requirements on the NRC and the utility, 20 and stuff like that.
So this petition thing, it's an 21 abuse.
It really is an abuse, because you don't give 22 a honest little guy that's trying to petition this 23 government to find out flaws, and try and discuss a 24 lot of these issues.
You don't give them the 25 opportunity to have information in front of them NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
31 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 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 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, Mr.
- Mulligan, once
- again, do you have any final questions or comments?
MR.
MULLIGAN:
You know, I've watched these NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com (202) 234-4433
32 1
petition things over numerous times, and the same 2
- old, nobody has any questions type of responses.
3 Everybody has no questions.
- And, again, that's a 4
indication that the 2.206 is an industry-sponsored 5
process.
It's designed to protect the industry and 6
the NRC.
It is not designed to serve a little guy 7
trying to figure out what's going wrong at Vermont 8
- Yankee, 1.5 miles away from his
- house, and keep 9
everybody straight on what's going on at the plant 10 within the NRC.
I
- mean, that's supposed to be, I
11 mean, on a worldwide basis to a little guy like me to 12 be able to petition their government, this is what 13 this is, one guy petitioning his government to find 14 out what's going on.
I mean, that's a privilege on a 15 worldwide basis in the United States.
The privilege 16 is to live in the United States, but as far as this 17 NRC petition process, I think it's an abomination.
18 MR.
BLOUNT:
I wish to thank the Petitioner 19 for his time to provide the NRC with clarifying 20 information on the petition you've just submitted.
21 With that, I conclude the meeting, and we are going to 22 secure the telephone connection.
Thank you.
23 MR.
MULLIGAN:
Thank you for your time.
24 MR.
BLOUNT:
Thank you.
25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 2344433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.r~ealrgross.com v
33 1
2 3
4 (Whereupon, the above-entitled matter went off the record at 10:55 a.m.)
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
- 02) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com (2(