ML092180454
| ML092180454 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Vermont Yankee File:NorthStar Vermont Yankee icon.png |
| Issue date: | 08/17/2009 |
| From: | Blount T Division of Policy and Rulemaking |
| To: | Mulligan M - No Known Affiliation |
| Kim J, NRR/DORL, 415-4125 | |
| References | |
| G20090335, NRC-2939, OEDO-2009-0365 | |
| Download: ML092180454 (48) | |
Text
~p.R REG(J~
.::>c,\\.
"tJ-UNITED STATES
- r.
011
~~
.L NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 0
<t 0
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20555*0001 I-3:
til
~
~
~
August 17, 2009
'</.
~
1-/}
~O
- ~
Mr. Michael Mulligan P.O. Box 161 Hinsdale, NH 03451
Dear Mr. Mulligan:
Your e-mail correspondence dated June 8,2009, as supplemented bye-mails dated June 11 and June 19, 2009, addressed to the Executive Director for Operations 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 Vermont Yankee pay a fine of $5,250,000 for operating their reactor illegally and unsafely with an inoperable high-pressure coolant injection (HPCI) system coming out of their start-up after an outage from June 6,2007, until June 12, 2007.
On June 16, 2009, you requested an opportunity to address the Petition Review Board (PRB) prior to its initial meeting to provide supplemental information for the PRB's consideration. By teleconference on July 9, 2009, you provided information to the PRB as further explanation and support for your petition. The transcript of this teleconference is enclosed.
The NRC's PRB met on July 21,2009, to discuss your petition. In addition to the petition, the PRB also considered information you provided via the transcribed teleconference, as supplemented by your e-mail dated July 9, 2009. The PRB's initial recommendation was not to accept your petition because your issues have already been the subject of NRC staff review and evaluation at that facility. The PRB informed you of this determination on July 22, 2009.
Finally, bye-mail dated July 29, 2009, you provided additional supplemental information in response to the PRB's initial recommendation in which you did not provide any new information pertaining to the HPCI system that the PRB had not already considered.
The PRB's final determination is to not accept your petition request for review under the 10 CFR 2.206 process because your petition does not meet the criteria identified in Management Directive 8.11, "Review Process for 10 CFR 2.206 Petitions" as explained below.
Your concern of an inoperable HPCI system at Vermont Yankee has already been the subject of NRC staff review and evaluation, for which a resolution has been achieved and the issues have been resolved. As documented in NRC Integrated Inspection Report 05000271/2007004, dated November 7, 2007 (ADAMS Accession No. ML073110213), the HPCI system was inoperable for approximately 6 days after motor-operated valve (MOV) V23-19 failed to open during a planned surveillance in June 2007. This finding was of very low safety significance as determined by an NRC Phase 3 significance determination using the Vermont Yankee Standardized Plant Analysis Risk (SPAR) model with the following assumptions: (1) a loss of system safety function due to the inoperability of the HPCI system, and (2) the exposure time was approximately 6 days and no operator recovery credit provided. The SPAR model internal event risk assessment yielded a low E-7 increase in core damage 'frequency, or very low safety significance.
M. Mulligan
- 2 This issue was entered into Entergy's corrective action program and the corrective actions taken included: performing an extent of condition review to identify affected contacts in other systems, evaluating system operability, developing a prioritized replacement schedule based on risk significance, developing criteria for replacement during preventive maintenance activities, and requiring periodic replacement of related heavily loaded MOV contactors.
In addition, Vermont Yankee has implemented "Commercial Dedicated Programs for Procurement" for purchasing the replacement contactors for three DC breaker cubicles (V23-14, V23-16, and V23-21). As short-term corrective actions until the replacement contactors are procured, Entergy performed a visual inspection of the three DC contactors, performed an operability evaluation for the HPCI system, and provided interim guidance to plant operators concerning DC contactor inspections following HPCI valve operations. Vermont Yankee has been successful in procuring the replacement DC contactors suitable for nuclear plant application and these DC contactors are scheduled to be replaced in September 2009.
As discussed above, the NRC staff has reviewed the licensee corrective actions and found them to be appropriate.
Thank you for bringing these issues to the attention of the NRC.
Sincerely, 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
Official Transcript of Proceedings
~.
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
Title:
Vermont Yankee 10 CFR 2.206 Petition Docket Number:
(n/a)
Location:
(telephone conference)
Date:
Thursday, July 9, 2009.
Work Order No.:
NRC-2939 ORIGINAL NEAL R. GROSS AND CO., INC.
Court Reporters and Transcribers 1323 Rhode Island Avenue, N.W.
Pages 1-43 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 234-4433
5 10 15 20 25 1
1 2
3 4
6 7
8 9
11 12 13 14 16 17 18 19 21 22 23 24 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
+
+
+
+
+
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
+
+
+
+
+
PETITION REVIEW BOARD (PRB)
CONFERENCE CALL
+
+
+
+
+
VERMONT YANKEE 10 CFR 2.206 PETITION FROM MICHAEL MULLIGAN
+
+
+
+
+
- THURSDAY, JULY 9, 2009
+
+
+
+
+
The above-entitled conference was convened, pursuant to notice, at 10:30 a.m., TOM BLOUNT, PRB Chair, presiding.
NRC HEADQUARTERS STAFF:
TOM BLOUNT, PRBChair TANYA MENSAH, 2.206 Coordinator JAMES KIM, Petition Manager and Vermont Yankee Project Manager MOLLY BARKMAN, OGC Advisor TONY NAKANISHI, SRXB, NRR Technical Lead NANCY SALGADO, Branch Chief, LPL 1-1 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 10 15 20 25 2
1 2
3 4
6 7
8 9
11 12 13 14 16 17 18 19 21 22 23 24 NRC HEADQUARTERS STAFF (Continued):
STACEY ROSENBERG, Branch Chief, Special Projects Branch ERIC BOWMAN, Special Projects Branch NRC REGION I:
THOMAS SETZER, Senior Project Engineer GARRETT NEWMAN, Project Engineer SARAH RICH, Reactor Engineer PETITIONER:
MICHAEL MULLIGAN LICENSEE (ENTERGY):
JIM DEVINCENTIS NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., NW.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
5 10 15 20 25 3
1 2
3 4
6 7
8 9
11 12 13 14 16 17 18 19 21 22 23 24 P-R-O-C-E-E-D-I-N-G-S (10:39 a.m.)
MR. KIM:
Good morning.
I would like to thank everybody for attending this meeting.
My name is James Kim.
And I am the Vermont Yankee Project Manager.
We are here today to allow the peti tioner, Mr. Michael Mulligan, to address the Petition Review Board regarding 2.206 petition dated June 8th, 11, and 19, 2009.
I am the Petition Manager for the petition.
The Petition Review Board Chairman is Tom Blount.
As part of the Petition Review Board's review of this peti tion, Mr. Michael Mulligan has requested this opportunity to address the PRB.
The meeting is scheduled from 10:30 a.m.
to 12:30 p.m.
The meeting is being recorded by the NRC Operations Center and will be transcribed by a court reporter.
The transcript will become a
supplement to the petition.
The transcript will also be made publicly available.
I would like to open this meeting with introductions.
As you go around t0e room, please be sure to clearly state your name, your position, and the office that you work for within the NRC for the record.
I'll start off.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., NW.
(202) 234*4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
5 10 15 20 25 4
1 2
3 4
6 7
8 9
11 12 13 14 16 17 18 19 21 22 23 24 This is James Kim, Vermont Yankee Project Manager in the Division of Operator Reactor Licensing in NRR.
MR. NAKANISHI:
This is Tony Nakanishi.
I am with the Reactor Systems Branch of NRR.
MS. BARKMAN:
This is Molly Barkman, an attorney in the Office of General Counsel.
CHAIRMAN BLOUNT:
Tom
MS. MENSAH:
I am the 2.206 Coordinator in the Office of NRR.
MS. ROSENBERG:
Stacey Rosenberg. I'm the Branch Chief of the Special Projects Branch in the Division of Policy and rulemaking in NRR.
MR. BOWMAN:
I'm a Project Manager in the Special Projects Branch in the Division of Policy and rulemaking in NRR.
MS. SALGADO:
I'm Nancy Salgado.
I'm the Branch Chief for LTL 1-1 in NRR Division of Operator Reactor Licensing.
MR.
KIM:
We have finished with the introductions at the NRC headquarters.
At this time are there any NRC participants from the regional office on the phone?
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 10 15 20 25 5
1 2
3 4
6 7
8 9
11 12 13 14 16 17 18 19 21 22 23 24 MR.
SETZER:
Yes.
This is Tom Setzer,'
Senior Project Engineer supporting Vermont Yankee.
MR.
NEWMAN:
This is Garrett Newman, Project Engineer, also in branch V, Vermont Yankee.
MS. RICH:
This is Sarah Rich, a reactor engineer In the Technical Support and Assessment Branch.
MR.
SETZER~
That's all for the region.
MR. KIM:
Are there any representatives for the licensee on the phone?
MR.
DEVINCENTIS:
Yes.
This is Jim Devincentis respecting Vermont Yankee Licensing.
MR. KIM:
Mr. Mulligan, would you please introduce yourself for the record?
MR. MULLIGAN:
I am Mike Mulligan.
And I live about two miles away from the plant.
MR. KIM:
Okay.
Are there any others on the phone?
(No response.)
MR. KIM:
Hearing none, I would like to emphasize that we each need to speak clearly and loudly to make sure that the Court Reporter can accurately transcribe this meeting.
If you do have something that you would like to say, please first state your name for the record.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., NW.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
5 10 15 20 25 6
1 2
3 4
6 7
8 9
11 12 13 14 16 17 18 19 21 22 23 24 At this time I'll turn it over to the PRB Chairman:
Tom Blount.
CHAIRMAN BLOUNT:
Good morning.
Welcome to this meeting regarding the 2.206 submitted by Mr.
Mulligan.
I would like to first share some background on our process.
Section 2.206 of Title X of the Code of Federal Regulations describes the petition process, the primary mechanism for the public to request enforcement action by the NRC in a public process.
This process permits anyone to petition NRC to take enforcement-type action related to NRC licensees or licensed activities.
Depending on the results of its evaluation, NRC could modify, suspend, or revoke an NRC-issued license or take any other appropriate enforcement action to resolve a problem.
The NRC staff's guidance for the disposition of 2.206 petition requests is in management directive 8.11, which is publicly available.
The purpose of today's meeting is to give the peti tioner an opportuni ty to provide any additional explanation or support for the petition before the Petition Review Board's initial consideration and recommendation.
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 10 15 20 25 7
1 2
3 4
6 7
8 9
11 12 13 14 16 17 18 19 21 22 23 24 This meeting is not a hearing.
Nor is it an opportunity for the petitioner to question or examine the PRB on the merits or the issues presented in the petition request.
No decisions regarding the merits of this petition will be made at this meeting.
Following this
- meeting, the Petition Review Board will conduct its internal deliberations.
The outcome of this internal meeting will be discussed with the petitioner.
The Petition Review Board typically consists of a Chairman, usually a manager at the Senior Executive Service level at the NRC.
It has a Petition Manager and a PRB Coordinator. 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 would like to introduce the Board.
I am Tom Blount, the Petition Review Board Chairman.
James Kim is the Petition Manager for the petition under discussion today.
Tanya Mensah is the office's PRB Coordinator.
Our technical staff includes Tony Nakanishi from the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation's Reactor Systems Branch; Thomas setzer NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., NW.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrqross.corn
5 10 15 20 25 8
1 2
3 4
6 7
8 9
11 12 13 14 16 17 18 19 21 22 23 24 from NRC Region I's Division of Reactor Projects.
We also obtain advice from our Office of General Counsel, represented by Molly Barkman.
As described in our process, the NRC staff may ask clarifying questions in order to better understand the petitioner's presentation and to reach a reasoned decision whether to accept or reject the petitioner' s requests for review under the 2.206 process.
I would like to summarize the scope of the petition under consideration and the NRC activities to date.
On June 8th, 2008, as supplemented bye-mails on June 11th and 19th, 2009 -- let me reiterate.
On June 8th, 2009, as supplemented bye-mails on June 11th and 19th, 2009, Mr. Mulligan submitted a petition to NRC under 2.206 regarding the Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station.
In this request, in this peti tion request, Mr.
Mulligan requested that the NRC fine Vermont Yankee
$5,250,000 for operating their reactor illegally and unsafe1y with an inoperable high-pressure coolant injection system coming out of their start-up after an outage from June 6, 2007 until June 12, 2007.
The petitioner raised a concern that 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
5 10 15 20 25 9
1 2
3 4
6 7
8 9
11 12 13 14 16 17 18 19 21 22 23 24 NRC-approved inspection report 2003-03 of the Vermont Yankee operating wi th operating instruction 5210 being contrary to 10 CFR 50, appendix B, criterion V.
He also questioned whether Entergy had implemented the DC contractor inspection on the three cri tical HPCI valves, V23-14, V23-16, and V23-21, using the revised inspection guidance since June 2007.
Allow me to discuss the NRC activities to date.
On June 16th, the peti tioner requested to address the PRB prior to its ini tial meeting and requested time to prepare supplemental information for the Board's consideration.
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, I'll turn it over to you to allow you to provide any information you believe the PRB should consider as part of this petition. At this time you will have one hour to present additional information in support of your petition to the PRB.
We will provide you with notification when there are ten minutes remaining as we approach the end of the hour.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE" NW.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
5 10 15 20 25 10 1
2 3
4 6
7 8
9 11 12 13 14 16 17 18 19 21 22 23 24 Mr. Mulligan?
MR. MULLIGAN:
Yes, sir?
CHAIRMAN BLOUNT:
The floor is yours.
MR. MULLIGAN:
I've got some cleanup stuff to do here first.
I want to report that I made a complaint about the general fairness of the 2.206 process.
And essentially James had told me it was referred to the OIG, the series of concerns I had and stuff like that.
So I accepted that.
And then the next morning I called up the OIG.
And Cheryl Windsor told me she didn't know anything about it or anything like that.
I do know that the NRC has issues with their document and internal communications and all that sort of stuff, but that's the sense that I have.
A lot of times NRC inspectors will tell me that I'm reporting this -- I'll make a report to the OIG about this concern.
I mean, it sounds like, from my point of view, it sounds like you just throw my issue in the wastebasket and nothing ever becomes of it with the OIG.
In the past, they never call me or inquire about the concern or anything.
I never hear anything from the OIG when an inspector tells me they are reporting 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 10 15 20 25 1
2 3
4 6
7 8
9 11 12 13 14 16 17 18 19 21, 22 23 24 11 it to the OIG.
And I just wanted to make sure that that was clear that from that she acknowledged that she didn' t receive anything from James or his boss or anything like that and in a sense of fairness and integrity right there with these types of things.
So that's one thing.
CHAIRMAN BLOUNT:
Before you pass on that, could I offer some insight?
This is Tom Blount.
MR. MULLIGAN:
Yes.
CHAIRMAN BLOUNT:
We understand, and I received your e-mail or I saw a copy of it. So I then subsequently also called the OIG's office to let them know that you had wanted to follow up.
The OIG does not as a practice provide the staff with insight or information 'on what they are investigating or how that investigation is proceeding, but I would encourage you to continue to interact wi th the OIG as you deem necessary and appropriate because they are a separate function of the* process.
So I just wanted to. let you know that we here at the staff level don't necessarily have insight that we could share with you other than to provide you the information that it is recognized that we put that information forward as we have indicated.
But we NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., NW.
(202) 234*4433 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 12 don't get into the machinations or mechanisms that the OIG will employ to evaluate or investigate.
MR. MULLIGAN:
But you understand what I'm saying.
I called him the next morning.
James told me the report was made.
And then the next morning I called up, and she said she never heard of me.
I just want to make that clear.
CHAIRMAN BLOUNT: I unders tand.
Thank you very much.
And we recognize and hear your concern.
MR.
MULL;I:GAN:
I also made a request because, I mean, this is all I mean, everything for the NRC is supposed to be in support of the peoples, the community, and all that sort of stuff.
- Really, that is what the NRC is about and stuff.
And I have an issue with the Petition Review Board.
I made a
request that their deliberations we are in a democracy, and their deliberations should be transparent and recorded and available for the public to understand how the process goes behind closed doors.
I don't understand why the PRB Board is not a democratic, transparent presentation and stuff.
You know, with the internet and all that sort of stuff; it's easy to make it accessible to everybody.
So that's that.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., NW.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005*3701 www.nealrqross.oorn
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 13 I would like to remind everybody that I realized how much of a privileged position I am in as far as being a United States citizen.
I mean, I sit here.
And I am making a petition to the United States government.
And I'm asking for some kind of an action be taken against a corporation.
I know that that is an extraordinarily privileged position to be on the planet, with all the rest of the countries, United States affords a little guy like me to face, at least complain about, a big corporation, big power center, and stuff like that.
And I know and I feel as though I'm a very privileged individual to be a United States citizen.
And I think Uni ted States of America is the best country in the world.
And God bless America.
I just want everybody to know how I feel about the United States.
Just for some background information, the Fitzpatrick plant recently had some issues with their HPCI.
- Well, they didn't have any issues.
They admitted back in 2006 the -- the license event report number is 2006-02-01.
That's rev. 1.
And it just recently came out on June 10th and basically declaring that they didn't disclose a -
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 10 15 20 25 14 1
2 3
4 6
7 8
9 11 12 13 14 16 17 18 19 21 22 23 24 when they made a mode change in their reactor, they should have disclosed it back in 2006.
And they're just getting around to disclosing it right now and stuff.
So that's the kind of background.
There are other issues as far as mode changes.
Now I'm referencing inspection report, Vermont Yankee inspection report, 2009-006.
I'm paraphrasing this.
Basically it goes through a -
Vermont Yankee had issues during 2007 with starting up the plant.
And it goes through a bunch of issues with relays.
I believe there were five of them that should have been inspected.
And they were over their limit as far as they should have been replaced.
And it goes on to talk about up until 2008, they really didn't replace or inspect all of the HPCI relays they were supposed to replace.
After 2008, they kept asking permission to lay the inspection stuff like that.
Really, in the inspection
- reports, we really don't have an understanding why those relays weren't being inspected. You would expect that, you know, you would get an indication and they would replace the component as fast as they can.
In. the inspection reports, you really NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., NW.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
5 10 15 20 25 15 1
2 3
4 6
7 8
9 11 12 13 14 16 17 18 19 21 22 23 24 don't get an idea why.
They kind of tell you the matter of fact information of what is going on.
But they don't really get into the motives and all that sort of stuff.
It's a problem wi th I think the inspection process.
Also in 2007, when this occurred, I find it suspicious that the NRC didn't completely describe it in their following inspection report.
The events surrounding the start-up of 2007, whenever that was, 06-08-07, you know, why didn't the inspection -- why wasn't the NRC documenting what was going on and getting it down in the record for us to understand what was going on?
You know, there's the issues of notifying the rest of the industry of defense going on.
And I'm surprised.
I mean, that is part of what the NRC is supposed to be doing.
They're supposed to be documenting these things as it occurs as completely as they can and stuff like that.
In this case there really wasn't a mention of the problems wi th the relays until the end of the year 2007.
I think that's a big problem with the NRC not meeting the community's needs of immediately understanding what is going on with the components.
And Vermont Yankee, you know, I think if we had 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 10 15 20 25 1
2 3
4 6
7 8
9 11 12 13 14 16 17 18 19 21 22 23 24 16 information in front of us right immediately, we would tend to raise a ruckus and force the correction of these problems at an early stage, instead of.waiting two years afterwards.
Back to that newest inspection report, again, they have this new violation.
What was the violation? The first violation was they didn't do it according to NRC regulations.
What is this one here about?
Well, anyways, why?
I don't understand why this kind of information is mostly available back in 2007.
Why are we hearing it now?
Why aren't we hearing all of these problems immediately when they occur or shortly after or at least in the inspection, the next inspection report?
Why are we going through these cycles of two years hearing about these violations two years later?
I mean, it doesn't make sense, really.
I think in order for NRC to be effective, all of these issues should be as far as if they can raise them or it's known - -
and it looks like these things were known, -- instead of waiting for to go through this mechanical inspection routine process or whatever you guys call it, these folks showing up two years after the event.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., NW.
(202) 234-4433 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 17 I think, you know, it's like getting a speeding ticket on the road and then getting pulled over two years later on and the police officer is saying, "Well, you speeded two years ago.
And here is the ticket for it" and stuff.
I just don't think it's fair to anybody.
I think these things have to be acknowledged immediately, have to be outed, and the community has to be alerted.
If there is a response that is necessary from the community, then everybody will be forced to correct these problems at the earliest opportunity.
MR. SETZER:
Excuse me, Mr. Mulligan.
If I
could just interrupt for a minute?
I've got a question for the panel.
Tom Blount, would it be inappropriate or appropriate for me to shed some light on the two-year issue that Mr. Mulligan has or is that not part of this hearing?
CHAIRMAN BLOUNT:
I'm sorry.
Who am I speaking to?
MR.
SETZER:
I'm sorry.
This is Tom Setzer.
I'm a senior project engineer, region I.
CHAIRMAN BLOUNT:
Well, first of all, let's be clear that this is not a hearing.
MR. SETZER:
Okay.
I'm just using that NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., NW.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005*3701 www.nea/rgross.com
5 10 15 20 25 18 1
2 3
4 6
7 8
9 11 12 13 14 16 17 18 19 21 22 23 24 term "loosely."
This meeting.
CHAIRMAN BLOUNT:
I understand.
so is there insight that you think would be beneficial to Mr.
Mulligan to understand that?
This is his opportunity to speak to us to support his petition.
MR. SETZER:
Okay.
CHAIRMAN BLOUNT:
So I really would like to hear from Mr. Mulligan.
MR. SETZER:
Understood.
I just thought I could help clarify one point that would help Mr.
Mulligan.
But if that's not the point and time to do that, we'll CHAIRMAN BLOUNT:
So if you could take note of that question and then we can come back to revisit that?
MR. SETZER: Certainly. All right. Sorry for the interruption.
Go ahead, Mr. Mulligan.
MR. MULLIGAN:
- Now, in a prior recent report talking about the diesel generator, they basically did the same thing as far as, you know, finding these problems many months and a year or so after it occurred and then reporting it to the public and stuff.
The problem I see with the NRC generally is you have I
- mean, you are process-driven.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., NW.
(202) 234-4433 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 Everybody is process-driven.
Everybody has got these CARs and CR reports and all this sort of stuff.
You've got a
ton of processes, and they are complicated and they're exotic and stuff like that.
I think I get the feeling, you guys, the process 1S the goal.
You have a problem.
You throw the clothes in the washing machine.
Another problem comes up.
You throw the clothes in the washing machine.
And basically you never take the clothes out of the washing machine and put them in the dryer.
Really, I don't get a feeling --
I mean, this is the latest inspection report about the really problem.
Why does this go on for so long?
Why is this going on until later on this year? Why are these relays problems not being fixed immediately and stuff?
So I think you're process-driven.
The goal is when you have a problem when you want to explain it to a guy like me or the public is you say, "Well, we'll throw this in this process.
We'll throw it just in this agency process."
And that's the goal of regulation.
The goal of regulation is not to sit there and say, you know, we can't let this happen again.
We've got to modify it. The results of the inspection program have to be that the utility has to modify NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., NW.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
5 10 15 20 25 20 1
2 3
4 6
7 8
9 11 12 13 14 16 17 18 19 21 22 23 24 their behavior.
They have to change their behavior.
I mean, what I see across the board is that you go through this convoluted ROP program.
And it r~ally doesn't lend to a
change in utility behaviors.
You don't have enough horsepower in order to get the utility to change their behavior.
I mean, I
think the utility should respond without a
horsepower, but it seems that ~n a lot of cases they don't.
Also I
have seen issues where these utility folks rope-a-dope the inspectors.
That is, they play
- games, bureaucratic games.
And the inspector has an issue.
And then they will make an engineering evaluation, a
shallow engineering evaluation, that they know is not correct.
And then the NRC will have to come back and spend a lot of time to counteract that with their own evaluation.
And you end up, you know, the utility has 800 people.
The NRC only has two inspectors on site and stuff like that.
So the game is fixed.
You know, they can tie up the hands repeatedly with these kind of rope-a-doping game and trying to exhaust the NRC and stuff because, you know, they're chasing their tails and they're not looking at new events showing up and stuff.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., NW.
(202) 234*4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
5 10 15 20 25 21 1
2 3
4 6
7 8
9 11 12 13 14 16 17 18 19 21 22 23 24 So I generally have an issue as far as the ability of the utilities to not directly answer the problem.
Again, basically, I mean, as far as the LERs, we can go back.
And we can talk about the LER, Vermont Yankee LER, 207 -
7 - wait a minute.
I want to make sure this is right.
That's good, 207002-01.
And I've done a lot of work in the last couple of weeks with NRC in trying to understand how the license event reports work and stuff.
And essentially what I've come out of that is that there is no --
I can't trust what an LER says from these last interactions wi th the NRC with the last two weeks, specifically about inspection report and LER.
Essentially the guidance is written so loosely.
And who knows what they report and stuff like that?
So I have no confidence that LER exposes all of the problems associated with an event.
I don't understand.
I don't really understand the reason why the guidance is written that way.
I can hazard a guess.
It's part of the Republican nuclear ideology of being objective and all that sort of stuff and not forcing the utilities to explain what their problems are and all that sort of stuff.
And that's my guess.
So I would for example, this SER that the company wrote back in 2007.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234*4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005*3701 www.nealrqross.corn
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 And my basic gist if back in 05-31-07, the contractors were carbonized, and they were fitted.
To me those are indications that HPCI was not functional.
Once they got started up, instead of doing the testing, there are issues with passing the system, operational tests, minimum flow tests, whatever.
I'm not sure exactly how it goes and stuff like that.
And then they started doing dull stroking and stuff.
And then in the flow tests, the full flow tests, the valve didn't work.
And, you know, they inappropriately shifted this event into two separate events.
You know, when they valve didn't work, they should have said, nOh, you know, we never proved HPCI was operational when the pressure was 150 pounds.
We never had a minimum flow test.
We never met the tint of the minimum flow test."
Because our procedures were defective, we should have assumed that HPCI was always broken before we even started up.
And the conservative thing would have been to shut down immediately.
And essentially it would then realized that the procedure was inadequate and not accounting to the NRC requirements.
And then you would have shifted into not an isolated problem and say systemic problem with NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., NW.
(202) 234-4433 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 23 Vermont Yankee.
Then you would have had training.
You know, the full details would have been disclosed.
And you had a couple or three days of training, stuff like that and what went wrong, and all that short of stuff.
And then you start it back up.
And Vermont Yankee could have bragged about what they did and stuff like that.
- But, instead, everybody played the "Let's be quiet" game.
And essentially it took you until operational and stuff.
So that's how, you
- know, people are supposed to recognize their problems and correct them, you know.
Even if you deny it in the beginning beyond usually deny it, eventually people come back and keep hounding us on it.
Well, then we see what we are doing is wrong.
And then we try and correct it and stuff.
And I really don't see that the system is trying to engage Vermont Yankee and many other utilities with the intent of making them change their behavior, not with the intent of throwing a problem into a problem.
I think that's a big problem with the NRC.
They're process-driven.
They're not behavior-driven.
They don't shoot for a change in behavior.
I also noticed -
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., NW.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrqross.corn
5 10 15 20 25 24 1
2 3
4 6
7 8
9 11 12 13 14 16 17 18 19 21 22 23 24 (Pause. )
MR. MULLIGAN:
I'm sorry.
I'm trying to fiddle with my computer.
I also did an award check on OP-5310, motor control center.
And, I mean, this is just a -
it's not a detailed check or anything like that.
But in inspection report 2002-03 in 2001, OP-5210, rev.
10, MCC inspection, in 2001, they're up to rev. 10.
In 2007, OP-5210 is up to rev. 12.
In June 3rd of 2009, they're up to rev. 29.
I could make the case and I made an allegation to the NRC that where I get this out of is the back side of the inspection report, the list of documents reviewed from the NRC and stuff.
So, you know, the conclusion I draw is that the NRC prior to the.2007 Vermont Yankee start-up, the NRC approved of the OP-5210 inspection procedure of the switchgear or the relay cabinet and stuff.
I mean, essentially the NRC declared that back in at least 2001.
I'm not sure, you know, if they later did a review of documents, you know, but what is an NRC review of documents?
I asked them, what is the definition of that type of thing?
And I get nothing from nobody and stuff like that.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., NW.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005*3701 www.nealrgross.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 Review if you look at the common usage and stuff like that, that implies that the NRC goes in details and looks up all the documents in the back of the inspection report.
- Thus, the conclusion I
draw is the violation that Vermont Yankee was cited for in 2007, the inadequacies that they were cited for, they didn't have inspection criteria and stuff.
You know, not having inspection criteria generally lends to* the idea that if you have an inspection criteria, then you would have to either fail it or pass it and stuff like that.
And you would have less of an operational flexibility and stuff like that.
So I am saying that the NRC approved of that procedure they used in 2007 to start up Vermont Yankee and start up that HPCI system.
The NRC according to the reports inspected and approved that procedure that was in accord to 10 CFR 50 appendix B cri terion 5 and stuff.
So the NRC approved that improper Vermont Yankee procedure.
I mean, I can make a case through the records that that is what the NRC did and stuff.
And so, again, you kriow, I just have issues here.
You
- know, we could sit I
- mean, what this is NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., NW.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005*3701 www.nealrqross.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 26 interesting, I mean, to me it is that what does this mean as far as all of these plants starting up after an outage and stuff like that.
You know, how deep does this go where these plants have a lot of the inspectors take their eyes off the ball and they walk away from the plant while it's starting up because they're afraid that they might interfere with the start-up.
Anybody will start acting conservatively.
And the plant will get a worse efficiency rating, you know.
And then guys won't build a renaissance, the new nukes and stuff like that.
You know, you can go on and stuff.
And so the NRC basically si ts back and allows them to do what they want and start up the plant too efficiently without following the rules and stuff.
And it's very problematic.
How big of a deal is this throughout the country?
How many plants?
We already know that six didn't declare that they properly entered a mode that they shouldn't have been in.
I mean, how widespread is that?
You know, this is all about relays and not having adequate repair parts on site and stuff.
I mean, how big of a problem is that nationwide?
You know, these plants are betting old.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., NW.
(202) 234-4433 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 27 And these companies are going out of business.
How big of a problem is that with them finding repair parts? And then everybody has to scrunch around when they are starting to plan up and play games and deceive and speak crookedly and that type of stuff.
I mean, you flip into, you know, where you could repair the safety culture of a plant.
If everybody knows the NRC and the utility can talk crookedly, then, you know, over a plant start-up, then everybody could talk crookedly if I bring up a
problem, if I bring up an expensive problem that I discover on my own to the NRC or to a utility.
And then you get into these games where, you know, if you get into a destructive culture like that, then you've got good guys and bad guys, you've got a system of intimidation where people who have a conscience are intimidated wi th speaking up.
And you've got good guys and bad guys.
The good guys might have a lot of issues that are overlooked because they're lenient to the company where a bad guy might catch a lot of problems at the incipient stage.
And he has talked as not being a player in the plant and he gets punished.
He is deemed -- you know, I can make the case that for an operator, you go through so many procedures.
You go NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., NW.
(202) 234-4433 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 through so many valve lineups and all sorts of verification.
You will sign tens of thousands of things away a year and stuff.
And everybody makes a mistake.
There are a lot of mistakes made.
And you go on to the guys you like.
You know, you exaggerate their problems, and you ignore their mistakes.
- And, you know, you get this shift of people from a good guy and a bad guy.
The good people get promoted.
The guys that really care about the plant, they get stuffed down in the bottom and stuff.
I mean, as an operator, I remember finding a lot of -- you know, over a year and stuff like that, you know.
You have so many procedure changes and stuff.
I mean, you spend days going over operation procedures that have been changed, revised, and stuff like that.
The magnitude of what is going on with these procedure revisions and stuff like that is astounding.
And I just was saying that with my allegation with the NRC saying that they reviewed so many procedures, I know that they didn't.
They can't review them all.
What is the object of having that review list in the back of the inspection report?
Is it 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
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 29 fluff up the NRC to make everybody look like they're doing work? Are the inspectors spending too much time looking over procedures when they should be inspecting the plant?
You know, what is going on with that?
So, you know, those are the issues to have wi th thi s s tart -up.
I'm really worried about not necessarily on just Vermont Yankee.
You know, a lot of this stuff with these operators being intimidated across the board, I see it a lot.
And it worries me that somebody can't honestly talk about these problems and you're shifted into being a bad guy or a good guy and stuff like that.
It's unnecessary.
It's part of this Republicanism, you know.
This ideology of the objective regulator and all this sort I think is a big problem. It got us into so much trouble on Wall Street and stuff like that.
I think we have to move away from this Republican NRC, the ideological NRC.
And, you know, utilities have that same problem as being so ideologic Republicanism, so anti I mean, essentially they are anti-United States.
They hate the government and stuff like that.
And I wonder how that really filters down into like the activities of the NRC and stuff like that when a 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 10 15 20 25 1
2 3
4 6
7 8
9 11 12 13 14 16 17 18 19 21 22 23 24 30 utility hates the government so much.
You know, in the background, they really hate because they think the government is the enemy.
And I just wonder how that is, you know, how that filters down to somebody overseeing that they hate you.
And they think that the NRC and the government are the bad people.
That must make it horrendously hard for the NRC to oversee a big organization like a nuclear plant.
I think that's a problem there.
I probably am getting down close to the end of my time.
I mean, that's what I think is --
I
- mean, I could go into detail, you know.
I haven't gone into a lot of detail in the nuts and bolts of what I know and stuff like that because I don't think this is the place for that.
But, you know, these are my concerns.
I'm almost done.
Here's the crux from my petition in the discussion section.
You see what I'm saying?
These control room people are so smart.
They all have been trained so much they have gone over and over tech specs training so often. They had so many quizzes and questions thrown at them and light in school and recall training about tech specs requirements.
They know these things in and out.
They see these things through professional eyes, and we are seeing 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
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 through an outsider's eyes.
Imagine you are a young, fresh, licensed operator up in the control room.
Nobody admits these things straight out.
You see any NRC inspectors coming in and out.
And they have truly questioned everyone, including the shift supervisor.
You know everybody is aware of what occurred. They started up that plant. And management with the knowledge fiddled with tech specs and the rules.
They pulled their punches in publicly reporting this.
Management and the NRC concluded to falsify the whole thing.
The young licensed operator would say, "Really, what kind of risk wa~ this to the public?";
especially thinking about it after it was fixed on June 13th.
He would say there was absolutely no risk to the public.
An astonishing, chilling thought in the back of 'his mind, he didn't know management and NRC were colluding
- together, potentially saving the company millions of dollars.
If I catch a safety effect that was going to cost Entergy millions of dollars, what chance does my career have to prevail if the NRC and management are in cahoots for the big bucks?
They could both NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., NW.
(202) 234*4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
5 10 15 20 25 32 1
2 3
4 6
7 8
9 11 12 13 14 16 17 18 19 21 22 23 24 lie, saying I'm an incompetent operator with a mental illness.
And I could lose my job over safety effects of the NRC and my company.
So everybody, the NRC interprets this as what is the risk of losing HPCI and stuff like that.
I mean, that is what their risk-based perception is based on this event or is it about a completely different accident than a simple assumption?
What if the site and the licensed operator lived with the idea that the nuclear industry was brutally unjust and they thought they faced the fear of being fired for raising legitimate safety concerns?
There was only one way to talk about conditions in the industry.
And everybody only talks with the nuclear industry's single voice.
The industry and the NRC have absolute infinite brutal power over these employees with absolutely no human rights.
How much money is human rights worth? How much salary would you need if they told you the U.S.
Constitution was not working on corporate property?
Would you sell your Constitution rights for $100,000 a year in benefits?
The utility and the NRC are saying that our story is the absolute facts.
Our story can't be 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 10 15 20 25 33 1
2
.3 4
6 7
8 9
11 12 13 14 i6 17 18 19 21 22 23 24 contradicted.
The truth is disconnected from real reality.
Your story or evidence will never have any standing in our system.
If this isn't brutal dehumanization, nothing is.
And I think that's it.
Yes.
I'm done.
CHAIRMAN BLOUNT:
- Well, Mr. Mulligan, thank you very much.
This is Tom Blount.
At this time, though, I would like to ask if the staff has any questions.
Staff here at headquarters, do you have any questions for Mr.
Mulligan?
MR. NAKANISHI:
This is Tony' Nakanishi with Reactor Systems.
I just want to go back to one of the claims you are making regarding falsification.
I didn't hear you really discuss specifics regarding that.
Can you elaborate on the falsification claim and what makes you make that claim?
CHAIRMAN BLOUNT:
Mr. Mulligan?
MR. MULLIGAN:
Yes.
CHAIRMAN BLOUNT:
Oh, okay.
MR. MULLIGAN:
I'm just thinking for a second.
CHAIRMAN BLOUNT:
Not a problem.
I just wanted to make. sure you heard the question.
MR. MULLIGAN:
Well, you know, how I would 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 10 15 20 25 1
2 3
4 6
7 8
9 11 12 13 14 16 17 18 19 21 22 23 24 34 look at it was what is the evidence?
I mean, did anybody collect any evidence on 5-31-01 during that inspection when they found the pitting in the carbonized pitted relays and stuff?
I mean, you know, see, from my point of view, you know, I know what my limits are.
There is a barrier in front of me.
I mean, 2.20, I mean, this thing right here today is usually designed to limit me on seeing what is really going on there.
So, you know, you say, well, what evidence do I have, you know?
What evidence does a control room operator have, really, when the reactor level is going down or there is increasing containment leakage in there?
Really, you have to make a judgment.
I mean, it's not about evidence.
Evidence you end up talking about in a courtroom or you end up going through all the levels of our court system and stuff like that.
You
- know, for operating a plant, you cannot base it on evidence.
You base it on intuition and skills and training and all that sort of stuff.
And you make judgment calls that you don't have the capability to do in a courtroom and stuff.
So I know my limitations.
I don't have NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., NW.
(202) 234-4433 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 35 the evidence in front of me other than what the LER said, what they found on the 31st.
And, you know, I don't know what.
Did they save the relays?
I mean, the evidence is that as soon as they started banging around within relays, it welded shut and stuff.
I mean, that's the evidence right there.
Whenever they were doing their testing and stuff like that, it welded shut.
I mean, all of those indications of it being carbonized and relays pitted were the evidence that they weren't going to operate shortly they were going to fail.
And probably they would fail in an accident if there was need.
Does that help at all? Tom?
Is that what you were talking about?
MR.
NAKANISHI:
Yes.
Thanks for the response.
CHAIRMAN BLOUNT: This is Tim Blount. Mr.
Mulligan, just for my clarification and understanding, are you currently or previously an operator at the facility?
MR. MULLIGAN:
- Yes, I was.
matter of fact, in 1993, I was fired from Vermont Yankee or,
- actually, we had an agreement,
- but, actually, the interesting thing was that it was over 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 10 15 20 25 36 1
2 3
4 6
7 8
9 11 12 13 14 16 17 18 19 21 22 23 24 an intermittent shorted relay of a fuel pool pump.
And I got a series of investigations and a whole bunch of procedure changes and stuff like that, you know.
So I worked at Vermont Yankee for 12 or 13 years.
I've also been involved in other events.
My biggest event was I put a bunch of executives in jail and discovered a $450 million fraud issue with a paper company that was in my area.
CHAIRMAN BLOUNT:
So when you say "operator, II you were a control room operator or a plant operator?
MR. MULLIGAN:
A control room operator.
CHAIRMAN BLOUNT:
Okay.
MR.
MULLIGAN:
I was licensed for a
control room operator, but I
was working as an auxiliary operator at the time we had our issues.
CHAIRMAN BLOUNT:
It helps me understand.
MR. MULLIGAN:
You know, that was in 1993.
I have more technical information, but I do not keep up with the documents and'stuff like that.
I know my limitations.
I have very little -- you know, I mean, you guys are the experts.
I actually have to depend upon the NRC to be my lens and to be able to see what is going on and stuff like that, you know.
Like I'm saying, I think NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., NW.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
5 10 15 20 25 37 1
2 3
4 6
7 8
9 11 12 13 14 16 17 18 19 21 22 23 24 in some ways, the NRC is not doing its job.
I. mean, that is the technical problem we always have, the communi ty has.
That's a complex business that very few people understand what is going on.
And we depend upon the NRC to interpret what is going on.
CHAIRMAN BLOUNT:
Okay.
Any other questions from headquarters staff?
MR.
NAKANISHI:
I guess this is Tony Nakanishi again.
One additional question regarding your claim that the reactor was operated illegally.
I guess I just want to make sure I understand that one reason you are making that claim is the inspection procedure not confirming wi th the appendix B criteria.
I believe that was the only regulation per se that you cite.
Is that the primary reason for concluding that Vermont Yankee operated illegally?
MR. MULLIGAN: Well, again, we get through this, we get to this problem of what can I see.
And I have a very limited view on that.
I mean, I would have to --
you know, I mean, my limitation is with tech specs and what is the requirement.
I know what is moral and ethical for the community.
And that is that you never attempt to start the reactor up with HPCI only being -- knowingly NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., NW.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
5 10 15 20 25 38 1
2 3
4 6
7 8
9 11 12 13 14 16 17 18 19 21 22 23 24 that it would be in a fragile condition where it could break in an accident.
And that's where the relays, the testing and all that sort of stuff on 34 leads you, was that machine before it even started up wasn't capable of meeting its design function, was an a fragile state.
And even if they would have gotten past their testing, if they would have done some more testing and all that sort of stuff later on in the cycle and stuff, there was a high likelihood in an accident it would fail.
And, like I said, plus the cuI ture of Vermont Yankee would be in a degraded condition that this indicates.
So the question I would ask is, what does the procedure say in Vermont Yankee specifically on what HPCI has to be, what condition it has to be in before they change the mode switch?
I'm pretty sure, you know, that HPCI has to be knowingly functional.
In other words, they might have maintenance work on it and all that sort of stuff.
But there has to be assurements to following the procedures and having the skill of the trades and the stuff like that that the people put that stuff back together in the right way wi th quali ty components and they don't install the greatest components and NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., NW.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
5 10 15 20 25 39 1
2 3
4 6
7 8
9 11 12 13 14 16 17 18 19 21 22 23 24 stuff like that, you know, the skill of the craft, however you want to term that stuff like that.
They're supposed to have a basic understanding that that machine, even before it's tested, could meet its commi tment and once they get into the testing routines have to start up.
That gives you the insurance that it can meet its intent and stuff like that.
So I would have two questions.
What does the tech spec? What does the procedure say?
I really don't have those capabilities to understand if it's technically illegally.
I know morally and ethically but without a doubt in my mind that that machine should have been before that mode switch was changed, that that machine should have had brand new relays in there and they didn't.
CHAIRMAN BLOUNT:
Okay.
Any other questions here from headquarters?
MR. MULLIGAN:
I mean, you know, I can't ask anybody any questions about what the Vermont Yankee's start-up procedures say about HPCI.
I'm pretty sure there is a signature in the start-up procedure that says HPCI has to be known to be operational.
I am not quite sure what tech spec says as far as did Vermont Yankee start up having 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
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 40 cabinet open and relays removed?
Could Vermont Yankee start up with those relays removed? And they know that that machine isn't capable of meeting its intent because the relays aren't there.
The valve won't open.
Could they start up and say, "Well, you know, but that's 17 days.
No sweat.
We'll get it fixed."
Is that legal?
Do you see what I'm getting at?
MR. NAKANISHI:
Yes, yes.
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN BLOUNT:
From the region, are there any regional questions for Mr. Mulligan?
MR. SETZER:
No, no questions from the region.
Again, pardon the earlier interruption.
I realize I spoke out of turn.
But no questions.
CHAIRMAN BLOUNT:
And that's quite all right, but if you do or would like to reiterate, this would be a time.
MR. SETZER:
No, no specific questions.
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN BLOUNT:
Understand.
Does the licensee have any questions for Mr. Mulligan?
MR. DEVINCENTIS:
Vermont Yankee has no questions.
CHAIRMAN BLOUNT:
I understand.
MR. MULLIGAN:
You guys have been more 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 10 15 20 25 41 1
2 3
4 6
7 8
9 11 12 13 14 16 17 18 19 21 22 23 24 talkative to me than you were last time. That's good.
CHAIRMAN BLOUNT: Are there any members of the public on the phone?
(No response.)
MR.
MULLIGAN:
One more thing.
The Peti tion Review Board, that's important, you know.
That's a request I'm making, that the Petition Review Board become transparent in their meetings behind closed doors are recorded and everybody gets their comments put on the record so that the community can understand what is going on.
So the -- hello?
CHAIRMAN BLOUNT:
Yes.
MR. MULLIGAN:
So the Peti tion Review Board could be more of a democratic process.
Do you understand what I am making with that?
CHAIRMAN BLOUNT:
Your point is understood.
MR. MULLIGAN:
Okay.
Thank you, not just this, all the times in the future, not just this time, you know, every time that this thing comes up again.
CHAIRMAN BLOUNT:
Mr. Mulligan, I would like to thank you for taking the time to provide the NRC staff with clarifying information on the petition that you submitted.
Before we close, does the Court Reporter 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 10 15 20 25 42 1
2 3
4 6
7 8
9 11 12 13 14 16 17 18 19 21 22 23 24 need any additional information for the meeting transcript?
THE REPORTER:
I think there was just one name that I had a question about.
It sounded like Nancy Delgado.
MS.
SALGADO:
That's Nancy
- Salgado, S-a-l-g-a-d, as in David, o.
THE REPORTER:
S-a-l-z-a-d-o?
MS. SALGADO:
S-a-l-g-a-d-o.
THE REPORTER:
Okay.
That was g, as in George?
MS. SALGADO:
Correct.
THE REPORTER: Okay.
Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN BLOUNT:
With that -
MR.
MULLIGAN:
I would like just two sentences.
I would like to have everybody to be reminded that the utilities in a general manner are under historic financial pressures and stuff as far as with their stock prices and cutbacks on electric loads.
And they're not bringing in as much money as they did in the past.
And the background of all of this is that the utility industry, the electric utility industry, is under an historic stressor.
And that's all I need to say.
CHAIRMAN BLOUNT:
Thank you, Mr. Mulligan NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., NW.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
5 10 15 20 25 43 1
2 3
4 6
7 8
9 11 12 13 14 16 17 18 19 21 22 23 24 again.
And, with that, the meeting is concluded.
We will be terminating the phone connection at this time.
I would like to wish everyone a good day.
MR. MULLIGAN:
Thank you very much for this opportunity.
(Whereupon, the foregoing matter was concluded at 11:45 a.m.)
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., NW.
(202) 234*4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005*3701 www.nealrgross.com
CERTIFICATE This is to certify that the attached proceedings before the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission in the matter of:
Vermont Yankee 10 CFR 2.206 Name of Proceeding: Petition Docket Number:
(n/a)
Location:
Teleconference were held as herein appears, and that this is the original transcript thereof for the file of the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission taken by me and, thereafter reduced to typewriting by me or under the direction of the court reporting company, and that the transcript is a true and accurate record of the foregoing proceedings.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005*3701 WW>/V.nealrgross.com
M. Mulligan
- 2 This issue was entered into Entergy's corrective action program that included: performing an extent of condition review to identify affected contacts in other systems, evaluating system operability, developing a prioritized replacement schedule based on risk significance, developing criteria for replacement during preventive maintenance activities, and requiring periodic replacement of related heavily loaded MOV contactors.
In addition, Vermont Yankee has implemented "Commercial Dedicated Programs for Procurement" for purchasing the replacement contactors for three DC breaker cubicles (V23-14, V23-16, and V23-21). As short-term corrective actions until the replacement contactors are procured, Entergy performed a visual inspection of the three DC contactors, performed an operability evaluation for the HPCI system, and provided interim guidance to plant operators concerning DC contactor inspections following HPCI valve operations. Vermont Yankee has been successful in procuring the replacement DC contactors suitable for nuclear plant application and these DC contactors are scheduled to be replaced in September 2009.
As discussed above, the NRC staff has reviewed the licensee corrective actions and found them to be appropriate.
Thank you for bringing these issues to the attention of the NRC.
Sincerely,
/raJ 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: ML092180459 Supplement 3: ML091910198 Incoming: ML091660122 Supplement 4: ML092170062 Supplement 1: ML091880499 Response: ML092180454 Sit 2 ML091770498 E
I uppiernen nc osure: ML092020329 OFFICE LPL1-1/PM LPL1-1/LA R1/BC LPL1-1/BC DPRIPM DPR/DD NAME
,,'Kim SLittle DJackson NSalgado TMensah TBlount DATE 8/11/09 8/10/09 8/12/09 Via e-mail 8/12/09 8/13/09 8/17/09 OFFICIAL RECORD COPY