ML102380170

G20100388/EDATS: OEDO-2010-0497 - 2.206 - Vermont Yankee Blackout and Normal Emergency Power Supply

ML102380170
Person / Time
Site:	Vermont Yankee File:NorthStar Vermont Yankee icon.png
Issue date:	09/08/2010
From:	Quay T R Division of Policy and Rulemaking
To:	Mulligan M - No Known Affiliation
pickett , NRR/DORL, 415-1364
Shared Package
ml102380122	List: ML102380170
References
G20100388, OEDO-2010-0497
Download: ML102380170 (30)

Text

... REGUI _ UNITED .:>c. s: O"?. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ('> WASHINGTON, D.C. 20555-0001

<<0  : ca. i;; September 8, 2010 V";: 1>1) ****i' Mr. Michael Mulligan P.O. Box Hinsdale, NH

Dear Mr. Mulligan:

In an email dated June 15, 2010, addressed to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's (NRC's) Allegation Desk, you submitted a petition pursuant to Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR), Section 2.206, "Requests for action under this subpart," asking that the NRC take enforcement action by ordering the immediate shutdown of the Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station (Vermont Yankee). Your petition has been referred to the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation's Petition Review Board (PRB) for action. The NRC has made your petition publicly available in the Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS) under Accession No. ML101670176. Your petition included a number of photographs of the Vernon Hydroelectric Station (VHS) switchyard. The VHS provides a backup 4 kV AC power source for Vermont Yankee. This power source is provided through an underground cable stretching from the VHS switchyard to the Vermont Yankee facility. At the Vermont Yankee switchyard, the 13.2 kV VHS power source ties into the site via a transformer where the power source is stepped down to 4 kV.

This transformer is referred to as the Vernon Tie. This power source is used for 1) the alternate AC power source for station blackout (SBO) conditions, 2) fire pumps used for fire protection pursuant to 10 CFR, Part 50, Appendix R, and 3) a back-up power source for remote shutdown panels at Vermont Yankee if the control room becomes uninhabitable. The structures in the photographs include components supporting the AC power source leading to Vermont Yankee as well as the local distribution grid to Vernon, Vermont. The photographs focus on rusted transmission towers and a surface hole of unknown depth adjacent to a stanchion.

You expressed a safety concern regarding the overall material condition of the VHS switchyard. In your petition, you indicated that the photographs, by themselves, provide a convincing argument that the VHS power source to the Vermont Yankee station is unreliable and should not be used as a backup power source. On June 21, 2010, the PRB met and considered your request for the NRC to order the immediate shutdown of Vermont Yankee. The PRB did not identify any immediate safety concerns.

Therefore, the PRB denied your request. You were informed of the PRB's decision not to order the immediate shutdown of Vermont Yankee on June 25, 2010. On June 29, 2010, a teleconference was held between you and the PRB in which you provided further explanation and support for your petition. A transcript of that phone call, which supplements your petition, has been provided to you and is publicly available (ADAMS Accession No. ML 101930382).

M. -2On July 13, 2010, the PRB met to discuss your petition concerning the adequacy of the Vernon Tie to Vermont Yankee and make its initial recommendation in accordance with Management Directive 8.11 (ADAMS Accession No. ML041770328). The initial recommendation of the PRB was that the issues raised in your petition have already been reviewed, evaluated, and resolved by the NRC.

Therefore, your petition meets the criteria for rejection. More specifically, the PRB made the following findings regarding the requests made in your petition: Order the Immediate Shutdown of Vermont Yankee. The PRB met and concluded that there was no immediate safety issue justifying immediate shutdown of the Vermont Yankee An independent investigation, outside of NRC and EntergYl to determine whether fraud and/or falsification of issues were involved in the license renewal efforts for Vermont Yankee. You are requested to refer to the following NRC public web site which provides correspondence regarding Vermont http://www.nrc.gov/info-finder/reactor/vv/key-correspondence.html By letter dated March 1, 2010 (ADAMS Accession No. ML 100570237), the NRC issued a Demand for Information regarding the veracity of statements made by Entergy officials to the state of Vermont regarding underground piping at Vermont Yankee. In the licensee's response dated March 31, 2010 (ADAMS Accession No. ML 100910420), they reference an independent investigation performed as part of the state regulatory proceeding before the Vermont Public Service Board (VPSB) related to the issuance of a Certificate of Public Good by the VPSB for the continued operation of the Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station after 2012. The NRC has not identified any instances in which Entergy staff or officials have provided incomplete or inaccurate information to the NRC (ADAMS Accession No. ML101670271). An investigation on what the petitioner describes as a subtle shift from reliance on diesel generators to the VHS by the Vermont Yankee licensee without the appropriate quality of a nuclear grade electrical power supply. During the SBO review of Vermont Yankee, the NRC staff concluded that the VHS power supply provides an acceptable alternate AC power source.

Regulatory Guide 1.155 does not require that the alternate AC source for SBO conditions possess the same quality standards as the emergency onsite AC sources. The NRC staff has previously reviewed, evaluated, and resolved the reliance that the Vermont Yankee licensee has on the VHS power supply for SBO conditions (ADAMS Accession No. ML060050024).

Regarding 10 CFR Appendix R: In the event that the control room had to be evacuated (Le., fire) and operators had to shut down the plant from an alternate shutdown panel, the operators would use the VHS power supply before relying on the onsite diesel generators. The VHS would provide an immediate source of power.

Operators would not need to wait for onsite diesel generator startup and loading. This approach is preferable in that it would M. Mulligan -3minimize the time necessary to place the plant in a cold shutdown condition.

Operators would still have the onsite emergency diesel generators as a backup if needed.

4. An inspection by the NRC or other responsible organization of the VHS dam and sWitchyard. The VHS switchyard, and more specifically the components necessary to support the Vernon Tie, have been inspected and examined separately by both Region 1 and NRR personnel. The VHS switchyard was reviewed, inspected, and found acceptable in the staff's safety evaluation dated March 30, 2007 (ADAMS Accession No. ML070870378), supporting license renewal for Vermont Yankee. By email dated July 23, 2010, you were informed of the PRB's initial recommendation and provided with a detailed discussion that included the basis of our findings. By email dated August 2, 2010, you responded to the PRB's initial recommendation and requested that your response be made part of the record.

Accordingly, your email supplements your original petition and has been made publicly available (ADAMS Accession No. ML 102210068). On August 26, 2010, a second teleconference was held with you and the PRB in which you provided further explanation and support for your petition. The transcript of that phone call, which supplements your petition, is enclosed and is publicly available (ADAMS Accession No. ML 102440275). During that call, you requested that your email, sent earlier that day that included excerpts on papers discussing the cultural theory of risk and identity-protection cognition, be made part of the record. Accordingly, your email supplements your original petition and has been made publicly available (ADAMS Accession No. ML 102380520). In summary, the PRB concludes that the NRC staff has extensively reviewed the power supply provided by the VHS and the reliance placed on this power supply by the Vermont Yankee facility. The PRB's final recommendation is to reject this petition for review as the issues you raise have already been reviewed, evaluated, and resolved by the NRC.

Thank you for your interest in these matters.

Sincerely, Theodore R. Quay, Deputy Director Division of Policy and Rulemaking Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Docket No.

Transcript of August Conference cc w/encl: Distribution via DISTRIBUTION:

G201 00388/EDATS:OEDO-201 PUBLIC LPL1-1 RlF RidsNrrPMVermontYankee RidsNrrOd TQuay, DPR RidsOeMailCenter RidsRgn1 MailCenter TMensah RidsNrrWpcMail KMiller, EEEB RidsNrrPmCalvertCliffs Package: ML 102380122 RidsNrrDorl RidsNrrLASLittle RidsNrrAdes RidsOGCRp Resource RidsOiMailCenter

RidsOcaMailCenter DJackson,RI

RidsNrrDlrRasb

DSpindler, R1 Incoming: ML 101670176 RidsNrrDorlLpl1-1 RidsNrrMailCenter RidNrrAdro RidsEDOMailCenter RidsOpaMaii KGreen RidsNrrDeEeeb DNguyen, DLR DDodson, R1 Response: ML 102380170 Petitioner's Email of 8/2/10: ML 102210068 Petitioner's Email of 8/26/10 ML 102380520 Transcript of 6/29/10: ML 101930382 Transcript of 8/26/10: ML 102440275

• Byemail OFFICE LPL1-1/LA DLRlRASB DE/EEEB/BC NAME DPicket1 SLittie RAuluck RMathew (A) DATE I'll \ 1 10 08/31 1 10 08/30/10 08/30/10 OFFICE LPL1-1 IBC RI/DRP/PB5/BC*

12.206 Coord DPRIDD NAME NSalgado /Jj.J DJackson*

\ TQuay i F**\.\ DATE q/3 110 08/30/10 110 ..Official Record Copy Official Transcript of Preceedlngs NUCLEAR REGULATORY 2.206 Petition Review Board RE Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station Docket Number: (n/a) (telephone conference) Thuffiday,August26,2010 Work Order No.: Pages 1-25 Transcript edited by Douglas Pickett, NRC NEAL R. GROSS AND CO., Court Reporters and 1323 Rhode Island Avenue, Washington, D.C. (202) Enclosure 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2 21 22 23 24 25 UNITED STATES OF NUCLEAR REGULATORY ++++10 CFR 2.206 PETITION REVIEW BOARD CONFERENCE VERMONT YANKEE NUCLEAR POWER ++ ++

AUGUST 26, ++++The conference call was held, Ted Quay, Chairperson of the Petition Review Board, presiding.

PETITIONER:

MICHAEL MULLIGAN PETITION REVIEW BOARD MEMBERS: TED QUAY, Deputy Director, Division of Policy and Rulemaking, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation DOUGLAS V. PICKETT, Petition Manager DOUGLAS DODSON, Region I, Division of Reactor Projects TANYA MENSAH, Petition Coordinator, NRR KENN MILLER, NRR, Electrical Engineering Branch DUC NGUYEN, NRR, Aging Management of Structures Electrical and Systems Branch 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 20 252 PETITION REVIEW BOARD MEMBERS: NANCY SALGADO, NRR, Chief, Plant Licensing Branch OTHER NRC PERSONNEL JAMES KIM, Project Manager, Division of Reactor ALICIA CALERO, General Engineer, Division of and HEATHER JONES, NRC Region I, Vermont Resident ALSO JIM DeVINCENTIS, Licensing Manager, NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, DC. 20005*3701 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 2 25 3 T-A-B-L-E O-F C-O-N-T-E-N-T-S Welcome and Introductions 4 Doug Picket, Petition Manager PRB Chairman's Introduction 8 Ted Quay, Chairman Petitioner's Presentation 13 Michael Mulligan, Petitioner PRB Chairman's Closing Remarks 24 Ted Quay, Chairman NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005*3701 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 P-R-O-C-E-E-D-I-N-G-S 10:04 a.m. BOARD MEMBER PICKETT: Thanks, everybody, for attending this meeting. My name is Doug Pickett. We are here today to allow the Petitioner, Mr. Michael Mulligan, his second opportunity to address the Petition Review Board, who we'll refer to as the PRB regarding hi s 2. 206 peti t i on, dated June 15, 2010, on the adequacy of the Vernon Hydroelectric Station Tie-In to the Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station located in Vernon, Vermont. I am the Petition Manager for the petition.

The PRB Chairman is Ted Quay. As part of the PRB's review of this petition, Mr. Mulligan has requested this opportunity to address the PRB. This meeting is scheduled to conclude by approximately 11:00 a.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'd like to open this meeting 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 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 introductions. As we go around the room, please be sure to clearly state your name, your position, and the office that you work for wi thin the NRC for the record. I'll start off. I'm Doug Pickett. I'm from NRC. I'm the Petition Manager for the petition.

BOARD MEMBER SALGADO: Nancy Salgado. I'm the Branch Chief from Division of Operator and Reactor Licensing.

BOARD MEMBER KIM: James Kim, Project Manager from the Division of Operating and Reactor Licensing, NRR. COURT REPORTER:

Folks, I'm sorry, but this is the Court Reporter.

The folks on the staff who I think are on a speakerphone are not making it onto the record. BOARD MEMBER PICKETT: This is Doug Pickett. I can send you an email with everybody's name on it so we have if you want to go over it again. BOARD MEMBER MILLER: On the line is Kenn Miller, NRR, Electrical Engineering Branch. CHAIRMAN QUAY: Okay. You got Ted Quay, the PRB Chairman in Headquarters, NRR. NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. (202) 2344433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005*3701 www.nealrgross.com 5 10 15 20 25 1 2 3 4 6 7 8 9 11 12 13 14 16 17 18 19 21 22 23 24 6 BOARD MEMBER PICKETT: And from Region I. BOARD MEMBER DODSON: Doug Dodson, Region 1, Project Engineer.

BOARD MEMBER PICKETT: The Residence Office. BOARD MEMBER JONES: Heather Jones. BOARD MEMBER PICKETT: And the licensee?

MR. DeVINCENTIS:

Jim DeVincentis.

BOARD MEMBER PICKETT: And Mr. Mulligan.

PETITIONER MULLIGAN:

Yes. This is Mike Mulligan.

I'm the petitioner.

BOARD MEMBER PICKETT: And is there anyone who has not introduced themselves on the phone. Okay. Then we'll move on. We've completed our introductions and we've got the representative from the licensee on the phone. And Mr. Mulligan has introduced himself. And no one else. I'd like to emphasize that we 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 I please state your name for the record. For those dialing into the meeting, please remember to mu te your phones to minimize any NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., (202) 2344433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 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 background noise or distractions.

If you do not have a mute button, this can be done by pressing the key star 6. To unmute, you press star 6 again. At this time I'll turn it over to the PRE Chairman, Ted Quay. CHAIRMAN QUAY: Welcome to this meeting regarding the 2.206 petition submi t ted by Mr. Mulligan.

I'd like to first share some background information on our process. Section 2.206 of Title 10 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 the NRC to take enforcement-type action related to NRC licensees or licensed activities.

Depending on the results of its evaluation, the NRC could modify, suspend or revoke an NRC-issued license or take any other appropriate enforcement action to resolve a problem. The NRC's staff's guidance for the disposition of 2.206 petition requests in its Management Directive 8.11 which is publicly available.

The purpose of today's meeting is to give the peti tioner his second opportuni ty to provide any NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 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 additional explanation or support of the petition before the Petition Review Board makes its final recommendation on whether or not to accept this petition for review. This meeting is not a hearing, nor is it an opportunity for the petition 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 the 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 Ted Quay, the Peti tion Review Board Chairman.

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., NW (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 1 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 9 Doug Pickett is the Petition Manager for the petition unde r discussion today. Tanya Mensah is the office's PRB Coordinator.

Our technical staff includes:

Duc Nguyen from the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulations' Aging Management of Structures, Electrical, and Systems Branch; Kenn Miller from the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation's Electrical Engineering Branch; Nancy Salgado from the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation's Plant Licensing Branch 1-1, and; Doug Dodson from NRC's Region I, Division of Reactor Projects.

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 15, 2010, Mr. Mulligan submitted to the NRC a petition, under 10 CFR 2.206 regarding NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., (202) 2344433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 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 the Vernon Hydroelectric Station's power supply to the Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station. In this petition request, Mr. Mulligan requested the following:

(1) The immediate shutdown of the Vermont Yankee facility; (2) An independent investigation, outside of NRC and Entergy, to determine whether fraud and/or falsification of issues were involved in the license renewal efforts for Vermont Yankee; (3) An investigation on what the petition describes as a subtle shift from reliance on diesel generators to the Vernon Hydroelectric Station by the Vermont Yankee licensee without the appropriate quali ty of a nuclear grade electrical power supply, and; (4 ) An inspection by the NRC or other responsible organization of the Vernon Hydroelectric Station dam and switchyard.

On June 21, 2010, the PRB met and considered the petitioner's request for the NRC to immediately order the shutdown of the Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station. The PRB did not identify any immediate safety concerns.

Therefore, the PRB denied the request for immediate shutdown.

Mr. Mulligan was NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 5 10 15 20 25 11 1 2 3 4 6 7 8 9 11 12 13 14 16 17 18 19 21 22 23 24 informed of the PRB's decision on June 25th. On June 29th, a teleconference was held wi th you, the Petitioner, and the PRB in which you provided further explanation and support for your petition.

A transcript of that phone call has been provided to you and is publicly available in ADAMS. On July 13 th, the PRB met internally to discuss your petition concerning the adequacy of the Vernon Tie to the Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station and make its initial recommendation in accordance with Management Directive 8.11. The initial recommendation of the PRB is that the issues raised in your peti tion have already been reviewed, evaluated and resolved by the NRC. Therefore, your petition meets the criteria for rejection.

In summary, the PRB concluded that the NRC staff has extensively reviewed the power supply provided by the Vernon Hydroelectric Station and the reliance placed on this power supply by the Vermont Yankee facility.

During the Station Blackout review of Vermont Yankee, the staff concluded that the Vernon Hydroelectric Station power station supply provides an acceptable al terna te AC power source. In addition, the Vernon Hydroelectric Station switchyard was reviewed, inspected and found acceptable in the NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C 20005-3701 12 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 staff's Safety Evaluation dated March 30. 2007, supporting license renewal for Vermont Yankee. By email dated July 23, 2010, you were informed of the PRB's initial recommendation and provided a detailed discussion that included the basis for our findings.

On July 30, 2010, you requested a second opportuni ty to address the PRB for the purpose of providing addi tional supporting information for your petition.

Following today's discussion, the PRB will meet internally to discuss the additional information provided today and make its final recommendation in accordance with Management Directive 8.11 As a reminder for the phone participants, please identify yourself if you make any remarks as this will help in the preparation of the meeting transcript that will be made publicly available.

Thank you. And at this point, Mr. Mulligan, I'd like to turn it over to you. And you have approximately 35 minutes, as Mr. Pickett previously informed you. PETITIONER MULLIGAN:

Thank you, sir. I'd just like to say, I'm self aware of how fortunate I am to be a citizen of the United NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., (202) 2344433 WASHINGTON, D.C, 20005*3701 5 10 15 20 25 13 1 2 3 4 6 7 8 9 11 12 13 14 16 17 18 19 21 22 23 24 States. Because, you know, essentially the Constitution gives us the ideals for this type of thing. And I just --you know, I feel very fortunate to be a ci ti zen of the United States and be able to talk to you guys, really, when it gets down to it. Basically I attest that all of what was talked about as far as the petition, you didn't --the NRC didn't talk --the NRC and Entergy didn't talk about rusting conditions of the electric towers. They didn I t do a detailed inspection.

I don I t know what codes. I mean, this whole is --there --there's a lack of information.

You know, you go into this thing and you kind of want the information, you want to get your ducks in order and everything.

But when you really get down it, very little information is provided for a petitioner to--to be able to fight back you guys according to your rules and stuff. And so, the SER and I suspect Entergy, really hasn't I haven't found any place in here that they talked about the rusting towers. This is what happened with the rusting towers, this is the condition of the rusting towers and explained it thoroughly in engineering terms. All you guys are engineers, you know what I'm talking about. NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., NW (202) 2344433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005*3701 www.nealrgross.com 14 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 And then made an open evaluation of this isn't necessarily about is inoperable.

This is the question is essentially is licensing relicensing adequate, is it thorough?

What's missing in this thing, and stuff like that. And what was missing is an evaluation of what the rust --rusting towers mean. And if you guys were competent, you would have covered that. You would have known how to protect yourselves and Entergy. You would have covered it thoroughly, exposed everything and then I wouldn't have had a leg to stand on, and stuff like that. I can't find anything in the written trail here of anybody discussing the rusty towers, or --and that, of course, questions, you know. Is that switchyard going to be taken care of appropriately for the next 20 years of relicensing?

So essentially, maybe this isn't necessarily all about whether the running dam is adequate for Vermont Yankee. This is a kind of language thing, you know. Help in communication type of thing. Is the Agency and Entergy capable of communicating, identifying problems and solving them, and stuff like that? It's a disease with the NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 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 bureaucracy more that concerns me. The sympt oms are the swi tchyard. The disease is, essentially, the twisted language that's being used here. And, you know, and you don't have any idea of the quali ty behind a lot of these terms, and stuff like that. You don't have any I can't see it in the documents.

It's an issue with the way you document everything, or don't document everything, or the rules of the documenting

--and documenting stuff. And so I don't have --as an outsider, I don't have the information.

I really don't have the information, very much information.

Just bits and piece of stuff like that. And so, I mean that's essentially where the big problem is: Language, the abili ty of everybody to talk and communicate, and the essence to know that there's a quality behind this stuff instead of all this --you know, an institutional failure like we've seen in the Gulf of Mexico, and all this sort of stuff, it's about language.

It's about the garbage dumb of language and communication.

Essentially, it's like throwing your divan in --you know, you have an old piece of furniture, a divan. You throw it in the garbage --the garbage dump. Then you go back later on and you're trying you know, you go back, you look for that divan. And NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND 1323 RHODE ISLA.ND AVE" (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D,C, 20005-3701 16 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 11 12 13 14 1 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 2 all you find is pieces of the arms and the legs, and they're all disconnected and fragmentary, and you can't make heads or tails. You can I t make heads or tails really what the components are, and stuff. And so this is what I'm talking about with lang uage and stuff. I wish see, I'm on a different phone. I I d like to reference the petition that talked about NSAC, N-S-A-C 108. NSAC. That's derived from the Electric Power Research Institute, and stuff. And basically the peti tion referenced that as a standard for diesel generators, and stuff. And, you know, I wish I had --I wish --I wanted I don't have my computer and I wanted to quote what the Petition Board said about the 95 percent or higher reliability of the diesel generators.

But I don't have that. I'm not --I don't have access to my computer anymore. But basically, the petition said that it was referenced the 95 percent was referenced by EPRI and NSAC-108.

You know, you start going through NSAC-108 or NSAC-108, you start going through it the only quote it says about 95 percentibility, and it's a quote here "Generally industry and the NRC like independent EDG NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., (202) 2344433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 17 1 2 3 4 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 reliabilities to be 95 percent or higher." So, you know, the way the petition quoted it to me was the 95 percent standard comes from EPRI. And then, you know, you gave me the reference number -the reference number. And I looked it up. And Doug gave me a copy, and stuff. But then it really --it doesn't really identify is a standard.

You know, it's just this circular kind of logic business.

So, like I said, I mean the only thing that referenced 95 percent was what I just quoted, and stuff. And it really doesn't identify.

This is EPRI this this should be EPRI standard that emergency diesel generator reliability should be greater than 95 percent reliable, and stuff like that. You guys are all engineers and you know, I'm going to talk about the grid out outside Vermont Yankee. I mean, you know basically

--I mean, I was there when we lost a grid, and stuff. So --and. --and all we had were diesel generators.

So, you know, it happens. And basically, you know, the grid normally stays energized 100 percent 100 percent reliability.

You could essentially say that, and stuff like that. But that that's not enough. We know that in the past that we r ve had NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE" NW (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D,C, 20005-3701 www.nealrqross.com 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 18 troubles with the grid. So we don I t depend we don't know that that is a high enough quality for us for electricity for a nuclear power plant. So that' s why we have the diesel generators and to power up all your electricity and stuff like that. So you want a higher quality of electricity of electrici ty. And so how you test it? You test it through the plant's two-way system. You just test you know, you test it once a month, or whatever you guys do now. And it runs for an hour, or sometimes you do it for I mean, that I show there's an assurance of high quality power to an electric station is I mean, that's the gold standard.

It's not --it's not that the grid is the grid is energized, although that is nice --that is really nice to have. Everyone knows that, that we don't want --we want to use a diesel generator; we want to use the grid. But we know that the grid is is not adequate, and stuff like that. So then we flip to the --we use the diesel generators in case of in an emergency and stuff. And so, I mean --so, the wording that you gave me with the petition basically says --the way the way the wording is, you frame it' s it's 95 percent reliability because the grid is because NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., (202) 2344433 WASHINGTON, D.C 20005-3701 19 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 that line is energized more than 95 percent of the time, and stuff like that. And, you know, it isn't the same. It is --you know, you kind of say, well the way you word it, it's not clear. The way you word it is, it's equivalent to a diesel generator, but it's really not even close to being as reliable as a diesel generator.

And, you know, this garbage dump --this garbage dump of words and language really bothers me, and stuff. And this kind of circular stuff, and you're referencing an EPRI document and then you start looking into --you know, more looking in the dump trying to figure out what's going on, and stuff. And getting bits and pieces of information, and stuff like that. And the EPRI document doesn't even really reference the quality of diesel generators.

It doesn't it's not a reference.

It doesn't specifically state this is a reference.

We EPRI would like you to have --in that document, that document that was referenced to me, we would like to have all plants have greater than 95 percent reliabili ty of the diesel generators, you know. You know, I mean, but then you're kind of saying that's what you're kind of --you're kind of NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005*3701 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 inferring that's what the reliabili ty of the Vernon Tie is, and stuff like that. And we don't --you know, it's not the same thing as it's not the same standard as what we use for diesel generators. -it's kind of deceptive.

And --and --you know, you got an --it's like I've talked before. You've got an incidence on one side and then on the other side you've got five or six codes or rules and you throw them up in the air. None of them really fit. And then what falls back down to the earth, you pick up five or six of these pieces of the codes and stuff, and and you come out authoritative

--authoritatively talking that the code says that we're allowed to use --we're allowed to use the Tie, it's equivalent.

I know that if I was to run around with my photograph and said "Okay, that Vermont Yankee is we're --we're in dire emergency and we want to use and want to use the Vernon Tie, we want to use the Vernon Dam and its offshoots.

We want to use that for emergency power." And if I showed them that picture, you know 95 percent of the people in my communi ty would say "Oh, no. That I s not right. You can't use." You know, they would --they would tell you that's not adequate.

They would tell you that's an abomination, NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 5 10 15 20 25 1 2 3 4 6 7 8 9 11 12 13 14 16 17 18 19 21 22 23 24 21 depending upon that grid, the visual effects. I think that's --you know, you got this goggledygook of technical stuff and it doesn't make sense. And I think the impression of people looking at the grid and saying what you --I mean, looking at the Tie or looking at the dam --excuse me. I think, you know that that impression that you want in a dire emergency and you I re going to depend upon that swi tchyard to power up Vermont Yankee and prevent a core melt, I think if you showed them, if you said that "Do you want to depend on this --the switchyard, " I think 95 percent of the people would say the NRC's nuts. Having overly complex and numerous sets of codes and rules is worse than having no codes and rules at all, you know. That's what I think. I think you can pick up these bits and fragments and pieces of these codes, and nobody understands them. And I don't even think the Agency half the time really understands them the way they talk and stuff. And you open start opening up the curtains, you know you start walking past the Vernon Swi tchyard and you say "How about this rust here?" "Oh, they had a relicensing." I wonder what I NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 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 22 wonder how I wonder how that's si tuated in the relicensing documents and stuff. And then you go in there, and nothing's even mentioned about it. And then you start then you go through a petition process and they --they --they --they reference this NSAC-108 business and you start looking into that. And, you know, fragments of information, that's all. It's no clear-cut

--no clear-cut

--at least what I can see, reference to a reliability rate, and stuff. And, you know the reliability rate of diesel generators across the board, you know it's been noted through all the years that everybody plays games with figuring out, you know, identifying whether it's a real failure or not a failure. I mean games everybody games that, the diesel generator reliabilities things, you know, to make it --want to make it look better, and stuff. You know, I --so that's so that's --I wish I had you know, Mr. Pickett, I wanted to read that email I sent you into the record today, but I don't have my computer next to me. And, you know, I don't know if you could read it into the record for me, because I don't have it because of my phone BOARD MEMBER PICKETT: Doug Pickett here. NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., NW. (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 23 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2 21 22 23 24 25 We have the email you sent to us and the write-up in it. And we will include that as a supplement to your peti tion, and we'll put it in ADAMS. PETITIONER MULLIGAN:

Okay. I'm just trying to think of anything I want to say --anything else I want to say. I think I pretty well much covered it. Oh. And I made I made a spelling mistake. The lessons from Forsmark in my letter to you initially about the petition.

And that's M-A-R-K. That's the lessons from Forsmark electrical event. That's an NRC document. And I just wanted to correct the spelling in that. would that letter is that letter going to be entered into ADAMS? BOARD MEMBER PICKETT: Are you talking about your email from this morning? PETITIONER MULLIGAN:

The email I sent you, I don't know, a week ago, two weeks ago, or whatever, in response to the BOARD MEMBER PICKETT: Oh, yes. That's in ADAMS. And we're making it publicly available.

'I'ha t; was at your request. PETITIONER MULLIGAN:

Yes, I think I (202) 234-4433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., NW. WASHINGTON, D.C 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 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 think that I --I'm done. CHAIRMAN QUAY: Okay. At this time, does the staff here at Headquarters have any questions for Mr. Mulligan?

Okay. Seeing none, does the license have any questions?

MR. DeVINCENTIS:

Entergy has no questions or comments.

CHAIRMAN QUAY: Okay. Does the Region have any questions?

BOARD MEMBER DODSON: The Region has no questions or comments.

CHAIRMAN QUAY: Okay. I believe there were no members of the public identified.

So, Mr. Mulligan, I want to thank you for taking time to provide the NRC staff wi th clarifying information on the petition you've submitted.

Before we close, does the Court Reporter need any additional information for the meeting transcript?

We did agree to provide you with the names of the individuals here. Is there anything else that's needed? COURT REPORTER:

No. And Mr. Pickett can either email me or he can call me. Does he want my number right now. NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., NoW. (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 5 10 15 20 25 25 1 helpful. John. I'm named John. I want to again. meeting's Mulligan.

concluded.)

(202)

BOARD MEMBER PICKETT: That would be COURT REPORTER:

It's 202-234-4433 ask for the only one in the office, the only one BOARD MEMBER PICKETT: Okay. Thank you. PETITIONER MULLIGAN:

And I'm want --and thank you for this opportunity to speak CHAIRMAN QUAY: You're welcome. And I guess with that, I guess this concluded.

And thank you again, Mr. (Whereupon, at 10:32 a.m. the meeting was NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE, NW WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005*3701 www.nealrgross.com