Monday, September 29, 2014

Why is Wolf Creek In Trouble?

MID-CYCLE ASSESSMENT LETTERFOR WOLF CREEK GENERATING STATION (REPORT 0500482/2014006)


Wolf Creek puts poor quality components inside their containment for sump water level detection. The radiation causes shorts …unit freezes up.

First freeze up happen in Nov 2013.
Another one occurred and they called it inoperable on May 28, 2014.
Rules say fix it or be shutdown in month.
 This document was date Sept 18, 2014:

Added to adams on Sept 22, I just noticed it on Sept 29….

The NRC says the comment period ends on Sept 26…

I thought the comment came out today, with the end of the comment period seven days ago…that is why I called in a huff I made certain of the dates.
So I asked why was the comment period close before the document came out…I was in error.
But the comment I got back was more puzzling than anything else, he said,  "it was written under exigent circumstances".
No doubt it was ginned up exigent circumstances…
They knew about this problem since Nov 2013…


During the facility-administered annual operating tests of licensed operators, the licensee training staff evaluated crew and individual operator performance during dynamic simulator scenarios and individual operator performance during job performance measures. There were two crew failures and 11 individual failures. The licensee remediated and retested the staff prior to returning them to licensed duties. Analysis. In accordance with Inspection Procedure 71111.11, each of the following was a performance deficiency against expected licensed operator knowledge and abilities: 1) Greater than 20 percent of the crews failing their scenarios and 2) greater than 20 percent of the licensed operator staff failing their operating tests. Using the Inspection Manual Chapter 0612, Appendix B, "Issue Screening," the inspecton determined that the finding was more than minor because the performance deficiency was associated with the Mitigating Systems Cornerstone attribute of human performance, and affected the cornerstone objective of ensuring the availability, reliability, and capability of systems that respond to initiating events to prevent undesirable consequences. The inspector determined that this finding could be evaluated using Inspection Manual Chapter 0609, Appendix I, "Licensed Operator Requalification Significance Determination Process." This finding was of very low safety significance (Green) because the finding was related to the requalification
I'd like to know how they come up with the 40% failure is unsafe?
exam results, did not result in a failure rate of greater than 40 percent, and the licensed operators were remediated prior to returning to shift. This finding has a cross-cutting aspect in the area of human performance associated with
Green. The inspector reviewed a self-revealing finding associated with licensed operatorperformance on the annual requalification operating tests. Specifically, 2 of 8 crews (25 percent) failed the simulator scenario portion of the operating test; and 11 of 46 licensed operators (23 percent) either failed the scenario or failed the job performance measure portions of the operating tests. The licensee remediated and retested the staff prior to returning them to licensed duties. Wolf Creek entered this finding into their corrective action program as Condition Report 75336.

Friday, September 26, 2014

Any Excuse To Gouge Us Over Electricity Prices!

"All of the above" really means  'Any Excuse To Gouge Us Over Electricity Prices'!  
 
It is just a huge institutional failure for our government with managing energy, the grid and electricity.  

Whether its inadequate natural gas pipeline, inadequate state and federal oversight/regulation of natural gas used to make electricity, the shutdown of obsolete coal or nuclear plants, green or global warming electricity and the polar vortex that happens every few years…they have any excuse in the world to raise the price electricity or blackmail us over an unstable grid.
Your freaken dummies, you go right ahead and hate government!!! 

Yep, and the newspapers just don’t have the resources to adequately report on the stories...our electric utilities and our grid aren’t popular discussions in our society today.

Remember, “all of the above” means the highest priced electricity sets the price for all the less expensive electricity symbolizing massive collusion of the energy source against the public.
Massachusetts consumers will pay significantly higher electric bills this winter as a persistent shortage of natural gas for generating plants drives power prices to record levels.
The cost for a typical household could top $150 a month, based on an announcement this week from one of the state’s two dominant utilities, National Grid. It said its rates will increase by a whopping 37 percent over last winter’s, solely because the cost of buying electricity from power plants has soared to the highest level in decades, according to a company spokesman.
Other utilities, including NStar, are also warning customers to brace for higher electric bills this winter, but they have not determined final rates for the winter.
“This is pretty bad, and it’s going to really have a bearing on a lot of Massachusetts households’ abilities to just make ends meet this winter,” said John Howat, senior energy analyst at the National Consumer Law Center in Boston….

Thursday, September 25, 2014

Mike Mulligan Asking to Be Put On VY Decommission Panal

Updated: Sept 28

Brattleboro Reformer: "Entergy details staff cuts, spent fuel plans at Vermont Yankee"

This is me on the front page of the Reformer's weekend paper.

Panelists listen to a question during the Vermont Yankee panel at BUHS on Thursday night.(Kayla Rice/Reformer)

They are dam lucky I forgot to wear my halo! Everyone rememebers me demonstrating my giant Brattleboro bridge rust chips.(Cause For Concern). Should have pulled up that giant rust chip and said this is the reactor building in 50 years. I know, I am mixing metaphors.

The important people in this know this is me (Entergy) and they clearly understood my message.

Vermont Yankee site VP Chris Wamser is my prodigal son(identical haircuts):)
Ok, what would be my position on the board? I request make the VY decommissioning process the most transparent and participatory process of its kind in in the world. Get that new state decommission nuclear engineer on board. Be the example for all the rest of the decommissioning plants to follow.

The simple system, record everything by camera and blogging. Everything. All the management meetings and discussions…then put it up on the internet. Have a VY special room where all these discussions are recorded. We got to figure out a server where the events of decommissioning would stay into perpetuity. How about a public room on the VY site where outsiders could record their thoughts and issues. All the documents would be available. 

Basically all the documents, internal communications and videos would be in the community room and put up on the internet. Be the symbol of truth and honesty…transparency… for every other decommissioning activities in the USA. 

Set up interactive blog. All the issues could have their own heading in the blog where the public could ask questions. Like, have a panal heading for them to discuss. Make the commissioning panel itself accountable to the public at large. Be an example to the nation and the world; the safety advocates, the anti-nukes and Entergy publically cooperating, interacting with each other respectfully. Be the positive example to the world at large to see.
So the blogging example heading would be: 
“Make the Vermont Yankee decommissioning the most recorded decommissioning in USA. Be the positive decommissioning symbol for the rest of the world.
So then begin a discussion with all the players and stakeholders where the whole world could watch us with the mission statement: Entergy, the NRC, the states and the public. Make it a participatory brain storming discussion for everyone.
I told Entergy they could be the positive example for the USA…a path for them to reclaim their trust, honor and image.

You know for a fact I would holding the board's feet to the fire.
I believe this is one of the most important community policing advances in 50 years. It is the world of transparency in front of us and nobody should be afraid of it except the crooks. I submit to you transparency is the least expensive and best controller of human behavior the world has ever seen. We all change our behavior we when we think we are being watched…the roots of this is unconscious.  
Officer Heidi Lambley, above, wearing a camera during a traffic stop last week in Pullman, Wash.Credit Rajah Bose for The New York Times
The Vermont state server would be the best place for this…but I wonder their if there IT will maintain the decommissioning site and actively work with decommission. You can just see it in a state budget crisis, cutting money on maintaining this site.
I have big philosophical problems with volunteerism. Most of the times it is a way for the state and corporate to shift cost away from these organization. It is a special kind of communism, everyone working for nothing in the name of altruism and the greater good. You can guaranty a low quality on the panel. If Entergy had their way, they would make the whole decommissioning a volunteer activity.  Honest work should always support the greater economy and the standard of living of the local peoples. I will always be on the side of the little guys making a decent standard of living and making a high quality government or organization who supports us all.
Oh, mike doesn't have a job...he can spend his days volunteering at the local soup kitchen or working for nothing in the greater cause of serving the community. Dignity is income and decent standard of living!
That raises another question, are local people going to play a large role at decommissioning VY or will it be distant out of staters?
And by the way, for you anti-modernity granolas, the Vermont Yankee property is a extraordinarily valuable asset and it is getting more valuable as we speak. It would be a crying shame to make that property just a park. Right, in future, we got that snaking new natural gas line going through northern Massachusetts just a few miles from the VY plant. The extraordinary value of the VY Vernon property is it could support huge new additional electric capacity or Entergy might use this property to block new grid capacity additions. All the large high voltage trnsmission lines in the region gets inter connected near the VY plant.  
Entergy could play a role to prevent new capacity additions, just make the VY property a park to make us feel like nature…jacking up the price of electricity to us all and making their buddy utilities very rich.
You know I will be blogging my ass off about Decommissioning. Nobody on the panel would have the plant experience and prior NRC licensed individual experiance as me,  as I worked in the plant for 13 years ending in 1993.

Go Navy! (nuclear)




Navy suspends most nuclear work at Norfolk

PORTSMOUTH, VA. — Two safety violations by civilian workers have prompted the Navy to suspend most nuclear work at Norfolk Naval Shipyard.

The suspension of work on Sept. 13 affects the nuclear-powered aircraft carrier USS Dwight D. Eisenhower and the submarines USS Maryland and USS Albany,
The Virginian-Pilot reported.

On two separate occasions in the past month, shipyard workers improperly handled equipment that had been used to work on nuclear reactors. The incidents violated the Navy's rules for the handling of potentially contaminated materials, shipyard spokesman Jeff Cunningham told the newspaper.

Shipyard officials paused all but the most critical nuclear operations to study the problem and to establish corrective actions, Cunningham said. He declined to say whether any workers had been disciplined.

"We work on small problems aggressively to prevent larger issues from ever developing," he said.

Cunningham said the problems "were minor and did not result in any impact to the safety of the public, the environment or employees."

It was not known when the work will be allowed to resume. Cunningham said it was not clear whether the suspension of work would influence when the three ships return to the fleet.

The Navy is swift to correct even minor breaches in nuclear safety protocol , said Chris Johnson, a spokesman for the Naval Sea Systems Command in Washington, D.C., which is responsible for oversight of the Navy's four public shipyards. He told the newspaper that safety pauses are not unprecedented.

About 9,200 civilians and 500 sailors work at Norfolk Naval Shipyard in Portsmouth. There also are hundreds of sailors who serve aboard ships that are undergoing maintenance there.

Wednesday, September 24, 2014

Exelon Nuclear Blackmailing Illinois

 Basically it is the “all the above” energy philosophy energy sources colluding and conspiring with the politicians to set the highest priced electricity as the floor price with the rest of the energy sources.

The utilities are smart enough to figure out the higher the priced consumer and commercial electricity, the bigger my cut. And they are big enough to take advantage of this philosophy.   
Exelon puts an opening price tag on nuclear rescue: $580 million
By Steve Daniels September 24, 2014
Exelon Corp. is urging state utility regulators to press for changes in power markets that would boost revenue at the company's Illinois nuclear power fleet by about $580 million.
At a Sept. 23 hearing before the Illinois Commerce Commission, Exelon Senior Vice President Kathleen Barron put a price tag on what the Chicago-based nuclear giant believes is necessary to keep at least most plants in Illinois open, the first public indication from the company of what it's asking for in dollars and cents.
Citing estimates from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency on how much more nuclear plants should be paid for their output in light of their carbon-free emissions, Ms. Barron told commissioners an increase of about $6 per megawatt-hour would improve the company's financial picture in Illinois.
There remain questions about ways the state could help Exelon generate more revenue in Illinois, where some of its plants are losing money. But no one disagrees on who would supply the money: ratepayers. A $6-per-megawatt-hour increase in power prices would raise the energy price currently charged by Commonwealth Edison Co. by eight percent. Downstate, where power prices are significantly lower than in the Chicago area, the percentage increase would be significantly more.
'ECONOMIC STRESS'
The General Assembly is expected next year to take up wide-ranging energy legislation aimed at complying with the EPA's proposed greenhouse gas rule, which requires power generators to reduce carbon emissions on a state-by-state basis. The proposed rule would require Illinois to cut carbon emissions by 33 percent from 2005 over the next 16 years.
In her testimony, Ms. Barron told the ICC it was “beyond dispute” that keeping all the nuclear plants open was crucial to complying with the EPA's rule.
“EPA's recommended $6-per-megawatt-hour payment would make a big difference for challenged plants in the U.S.,” Exelon said in a statement. “In Illinois, it would offset a good deal of the economic stress on these units, which together represent almost 30 million metric tons of avoided carbon emissions per year.”
But, pressed on the matter, Exelon wouldn't commit to keeping all its Illinois plants open even with that subsidy.
“While a $6-per-megawatt-hour payment or even less would be sufficient for some units, $6 may not be enough for others,” the company said. “Each of our 11 nuclear units in Illinois has a different cost structure and different requirements.”
Exelon has said that at least two of its six Illinois stations (five of which have two units and one of which has a single unit) are losing money now. Those are its downstate Clinton plant (the single-unit station) and its Quad Cities plant.
FAIR TO CUSTOMERS?
In the past, when the state Legislature has approved legislation to spur a cleaner power mix in Illinois, it has added protections for ratepayers that capped increases at about 2 percent. A 2 percent cap on a nuclear rescue payment would likely mean no more than $300 million in additional revenue for Exelon.
If lawmakers were to approve a $6-per-megawatt-hour payment for nukes, they would have to forgo the 2 percent rate-hike cap they've used in the past.
“It's a huge amount of money,” said David Kolata, executive director of the Citizens Utility Board, a Chicago consumer advocate. “If that's going to be their ask, they'll be getting all the profits without any of the risk. That would be an awfully hard hit to consumers.”
It also raises questions as to how much ratepayer money other energy interests will seek under the auspices of complying with the greenhouse gas rule. Representatives of the wind and solar power industries testified before the ICC on how expanding renewable sources in Illinois would be key to lowering carbon emissions.

The state's second-largest power generator, Houston-based Dynegy Inc., has said it may lobby lawmakers to shift downstate Illinois into the same regional power grid that includes northern Illinois — a move that would raise power prices downstate about 18 percent from where they are now. That would help Dynegy preserve the downstate coal-fired fleet it acquired late last year from St. Louis-based Ameren Corp.

To My WIPPs and DOE OIG buddies

I believe this emerged from a political system dysfunction.  We had had tremendous budget problems…broad-based DOE and WIPP cutbacks. So the DOE forces a competition to the lowest priced contract. Then the DOE feels they need to give back favors…maintenance and safety give backs in order that the contractors make a reasonable profit. I think the contractor place a lot of pressure on the administration and Congress…this facilitates the give backs.

But this thing at WIPPs is the whole agency in scope and I think political in nature.
The nation’s defense nuclear facilities, including Savannah River Site, are not adequately prepared to respond to earthquakes, fires and other emergencies, according to a federal nuclear safety oversight panel
In a recommendation to U.S. Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz, the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board said the federal government has become complacent on updating emergency response procedures and safety standards at nuclear weapons facilities.
Additionally, the Department of Energy did not fully integrate lessons learned from the nuclear reactor meltdown at the Fukushima Dai-ichi Nuclear Power Plant in Japan into site programs, the board stated.
The recommendation, based on several years of inspections at the facilities and public hearings, was published Tuesday in the Federal Register. There is a 30-day public comment period on the report.
The response to a truck fire and radioactive material release at the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant in Carlsbad, N.M., highlighted the prevalence of shortcomings at other defense nuclear facilities, the board wrote. Many sites have insufficient emergency preparedness and response programs, planning and training, it continued.
“The board is concerned that these problems stem from DOE’s failures to implement existing emergency management requirements and to periodically update these requirements,” according to the report.
At SRS, the board highlighted issues with requiring workers to “shelter-in-place” no matter the type of emergency; in some cases, more immediate evacuations could protect workers from exposure to hazardous materials.
The site has corrected procedures, however, to identify various shelter types for different emergencies, such as an earthquake instead of radioactive releases.
SRS and the Pantex Plant in Texas were two sites where emergency exercise scenarios were not challenging enough to show that the sites were adequately prepared to respond to a major emergency, according to the board. The board commended SRS, however, for a “well developed and executed” training program for emergency response personnel that is lacking at other facilities, including the Pantex Plant and Sandia National Laboratories.
The DOE must improve its oversight at nuclear facilities or risk worker and public safety should an emergency occur, the board wrote.

On March 21, 2014, and March 28,


RECOMMENDATION 2014-1 TO THE SECRETARY OF ENERGY


Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 2286d(a)(3)

Atomic Energy Act of 1954, As Amended

...2014, the Board communicated to the Secretary of Energy its concerns regarding shortcomings in the responses to a truck fire and radioactive material release event at the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) in Carlsbad, New Mexico. The DOE Accident Investigation Board explored and documented these shortcomings in its reports. Many of the site-specific issues noted at WIPP are prevalent at other sites with defense nuclear facilities, as documented in the attached report.
...Through its participation in DOE nuclear safety workshops in response to the events at the Fukushima Dai-ichi Nuclear Power Plant and its lines of inquiry regarding emergency preparedness and response at recent public hearings and meetings, Board

members have been supportive of DOE’s efforts to improve its response to both design basis and beyond design basis events. However, the Board believes DOE’s efforts to adequately address emergency preparedness and response at its sites with defense nuclear facilities have fallen short as clearly evidenced by the truck fire and radioactive material release events at WIPP.

...Based on an evaluation of the problems observed with emergency preparedness and response at DOE sites with defense nuclear facilities, the most important underlying root causes of these problems are ineffective implementation of existing requirements, inadequate revision of requirements to address lessons learned and needed improvements to site programs, and weaknesses in DOE verification and validation of readiness of its sites with defense nuclear facilities.

The NRC Doesn’t Have The Statutory Horsepower to Control the Behavior of Palisades.

Do you speak Mulliganese?
 
If I read just one more time my "stuff like that" phrase I am going to hang myself:)


Official Transcript of Proceedings
 
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
 
 
Date: Wednesday, September 3, 2014

Excerpts
 
·         MR. MULLIGAN: Thank you. Deterrents. You know, we look at deterrents as far as the NRC's activities associated with a nuclear power plant, and we see that the NRC doesn't have any, very little deterrents on the bad behaviors of other plants.

·         As far as all of the issues with Palisades over the years, a recent newspaper wrote up an interesting set of articles about Palisades and all the troubles they had. And what you see over this thing is there is, one thing, the NRC doesn't have any horsepower to, you know, put fear in the eyes of these guys. And that's, basically, you know, if you go one-by-one with these regulations and stuff like that, you're going to consume all the NRC's resources stuff like that.

·         And so there's the deterrence part of the NRC's activities. You know, the utilities are going to exhaust the agency with all the nickel and dime stuff if there's not a deterrence part of this deal, if they don't fear the NRC and that type of thing.

·         We also know that -- I believe that, generally, in the last five years, as shown by the articles in the newspaper, that with all of our troubles, Palisades had better capacity factor than they had in the early years and stuff. And this is all, essentially, because of risk perspectives and reductions of regulations and all that sort of stuff. And so in spite of all their troubles and that type of thing, Palisades has been allowed to continue on in the way they've always done.

·         Palisades did a relatively good job on the control rod drive mechanisms of recent, but they had a horrible history of CRDM problems and that type of stuff. Palisades has had numerous issues of falsifying documents, intimidating employees, lying to inspectors over the recent years and that type of stuff. And, you know, like the recent issue with the security guards, they had a similar incident four or five years ago, basically the same thing: lying and falsifying documents to the NRC. And I know the NRC basically says after two or three years, we’ll just make believe that it never happened, you know, the history never really is caught up knitted together. And you don't have enough influence and power to keep a plant like Palisades straight.

·         What's happened here is really ugly. What's happened with the impellers is ugly. It's unprofessional. It makes our nation a laughing stock to all the other nations that are desperately trying to, you know, maintain their fleet safely and stuff like that.

·         And I've heard from numerous professional people in the industry basically saying they cannot believe that we allowed the Palisades plants to operate for so many years with these reactor coolant pumps and all these different kind of warnings we've had over the years and stuff and all these indications. And we're only getting, the outsiders are only getting the bits and pieces of what really went on with these impellers and stuff. You know, a lot of nations think of this as irresponsible and not worthy of a great nation when you get down to these impellers and stuff.

·         And then you've got Salem, like I talked about, the recent issues with a horrendous, all their bolts being loose and stuff like that, prior, you know, prior warnings and that type of stuff that were ignored, and the NRC really hasn't stepped in there and done what the public wants. They don't want to have a Salem. You know, a crack starts somewhere in a reactor coolant pump. They want that crack fixed. They don't want to have to deal with these problems for years and years and deal with the broken bolts and fallen down components and the pumps and stuff. That's ugly. The amount of cracked and broken impellers, it's ugly. It's unprofessional. It's an essence of an indicator,

·         you know. If they can't keep these impellers, you know, if they don't have to spend so much resource on these broken components, impellers, the tank that recently leaked, the control rod drive mechanisms, and stuff like that. You know, they're just consuming plant resources, and we fear that other safety problems aren't being dealt with adequately.

·         A lot of these kind of components breaking and stuff like that, that has a tendency to make the employees disillusioned and they know that it's wrong and stuff like that. And they know that the NRC doesn't back them. They know that, you know, we have to make they'll be up in the control room and they'll have the indications of a big blade being thrown off the pump, and everybody will sit back and not give what the public really wants the Agency to force Palisades to do, to shut down, pay a price, deterrence, deterrence, and make them pay a price so that, you know, when they're in their little rooms and they're making these decisions about, you know, well, we've got some part of the impeller cracked, we can either fix it right, put in new parts so we don't have to deal with this in the past, or the NRC is going to, down the road, if, you know, bigger parts start falling off the pump or it gets strewn about the plant, they're going to make us pay a horrendous price.

·         Most of the people, you know, what is safety related and all that sort of stuff, you know. We think when you talk about Palisades is safe that means that you are pretty sure that they won't have a, you know, a type of severe core damage and off-site relief where you'll have a fatality. That's what you're saying when you say a plant is safe, and that's just not an appropriate standard. We don't think that's an appropriate -- we think this ugliness is a pretty good indicator of the future and that it shouldn't be tolerated. It should be nice and clean, and the operation of the plant should be nice and clean, and they're not all caught up with these degradations and broken components and all that sort of stuff. It's a clean plant. The staff is not excessively busy or the control room employees don't have all these complicated procedures in place of, you know, a well-engineered plant. And, you know, everybody is diligently paying attention to the plant, not paying attention, not worrying about the degradations.

·        We worry about Palisades, but there's a risk if a lot of plants have degradation mechanisms that the NRC doesn't have under control and, you know, necessarily what you can prove isn't the most unsafe. It's a lot of the stuff that's behind the barrier that's degraded, that's degrading in an unknown fashion, and that's a threat to the nation and to a plant.

·         So that's kind of what we're worried about with -- rules don't carry a lot of information and stuff. You know, staying within the rules doesn't have a lot of information. Usually, human intelligence and a brain can process a lot of information and that type of thing, and so that's what I worry about is a lot of these rules and stuff is designed to make us become more stupider than we really are.
 
·         I think, like I said, we worry about what's going on if regulations will tolerate this kind of ugly behavior at Palisades, certain events in the industry that are pretty concerning that are out there that kind of questions whether it's a lot more uglier than what's being portrayed by the NRC.

·         You know, it almost gets to the point of, you know, the NRC says, you know, well, cheating isn't safety related, you know. We can't -- it doesn't, it's un-safety related. It can be repaired, or it's not a big deal, or it's not modeled appropriately in all your risk perspectives and stuff like that.

·         Another issue we have is really you don't have any proof, there's no engineering proof that those reactor coolant pumps are safe. You don't have any, I don't see any model of, you know, actual building a plant, building, more or less, a prototype type of deal where you're beating the hell out of the pumps and you're getting those kind of blade failures and everybody, you know, you're experimenting a lot on a system like the Palisades pumps and its relationship to its primary coolant system and stuff like that. You don't have really any actual, I don't see any actual engineering that those pumps are safe. Studies, actual studies. It's all kind of, more or less, you know, the fallback of the NRC, it's our opinion that it's safe and stuff like that. That's the privilege of the NRC. They get to say that, basically, the professional people, they get to say, you know, a guy like me needs triplicate proof that Palisades is unsafe, even when it's all there. You guys get to say, "It's my opinion that it's safe," and you don't have any evidence to back it up.

·         So the evidence I'm talking about is, would be some engineering document showing that, you know, we've gone through all of the, you know, not necessarily intellectual kind of thing that the NRC likes to do, but we really set up a system and we've repeated the degradation mechanisms on Palisades with their PCP pumps and stuff like that, and we actually seen the results of the broken impellers and stuff like that. We have a full engineering understanding of the mechanisms of what potentially could go wrong in the future with those pumps. I don't think a lot of you guys really understand how difficult that is being in the control room and, you know -- you guys all mostly get to see a lot of this stuff in hindsight. Those guys in the control room get to see those events when equipment fails and they have no idea why it failed and why it's behaving that way. Then they get stuck with procedures that don't work. It's a terrifying situation and unnerving situation in the control room.

·         And we think, you know, with this Palisades deal being ugly and stuff, your inability to enforce integrity and truth-telling -- Palisades is not afraid to lie when they need to or be deceptive to the NRC. That's the history of Palisades and stuff like that, and we think actually that happens a lot throughout the industry.

·         And then the general stated the nuclear industry as a whole and incentives nowadays for a lot of these utilities with their economic troubles to cut back and stuff. You know, our fear is if we seen all that was going on there, we could foresee, and the NRC could behave in a different way. But there's tremendous barriers. A lot of rules are set up, you know, like in this thing here. I can't see all the documents and stuff like that.

·         And if we had all of the knowledge in front of us of what was going on, outsiders could intervene, just like if everybody seen what was going on in Fukushima and the anti-nukes could have that kind of ammunition, maybe that wouldn't have happened. Maybe we could have captured a couple of minds and consciences and not have such an ugly situation facing us in the future.

The Meltdown of Trust and Intergrity At Palisades nuclear Plant

Billie was once my lawyer and I didn’t like the outcome of my case.

Anyways, Billie was always naïve and out of the loop. The question is; lying and being deceptive is not safety related according to risk perspectives.

Calling a plant or employee a liar is basically a too big to fail philosophy. Calling them outright a liar would lead to enormous consequences: a shutdown or black listing of an employee for life. It intentionally takes way too much quality of evidence to make a call the employee has falsified an issue...thus integrity is never put into play. The the NRC positively incentivizes deception and lying in the so called interest of our nation. The NRC has turned upside down what is in our national interest...making the egency's interest above our national interest.  

It takes unobtainable triplicate proof that intentional lying went on, basically the liar has to admit he lied. Basically, if the agency went on a campaign of totally rooting out nuclear industry dishonesty, it would break the back of the nuclear industry, and threaten 20% of our electricity is the way they think. I say being being open and honest would lead to more profits and lower electric cost. They say the route to more profits and self-interest is through deception and lying.  The nuclear industry is too big and vital to tell the truth…the whole truth. It is too big and vital to our nation to fail. So we have institutionalized lying and deception in the NRC and in our political system.

It is now a natural and expected way to run the nuclear industry…

And basically the Confirmatory Action Letter and order is now but a tool for deception and lying, to keep a plant from not being accountable to the public. Does anyone in the industry ever really think they need to meet a CAL order or is it nothing but a bureaucratic and poltical façade?

Personally, I wouldn’t trust any third party nuclear industry safety consultant. It is all the arm of a deceptive and unaccountable nuclear industry. Any or all of the report can remain secret from the NRC and public and Entergy has dictatorial control of the investigation . For me to trust the safety consultant report, it would have to be independently funded off Entergy’s control. It would need be mandatory truth telling. I can’t see but the government funding this and the investigation be in  the total control of the independent and trustworthy organization.
 
Or they can just the shut the fuck down!

I am amazed Billie would want a commercial or corporate product? God, she must be so old now?

What we are really dealing here is systemic and widespread institutionalized lying and deception by the NRC and the corporate nuclear industry. It is, so called in the name of altruism or in the interest of our nation. It is really self-interest dressed up as "what is best for my family", altruism or what is in the greatest interest of our nation.
 
It is upside-down altrusim and family love!   
Law Office

CLIFFORI & GARDE

August 11, 2014 (revised)

 
Mark Satorius
Executive Director for Operations
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
Washington, D.C. 20555-000 l



Dear Mr. Sntorius:

The safety culture within the Security Department at the Palisades nuclear power plant has reached the point that sig:1ificant regulatory intervention is required by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) to ensure that reasonable assurance exists that the public is protected from security related threats and incidents.

On behalf of my clients, and -(former Security Shift Supervisors at Palisades who were terminated by Entergy), and pursuant to l 0 CFR 2.206, this letter requests that the Agency take escalated enforcement action requiring Entergy (the Licensee) either I) to outsourcc its Security Department to a qualified security contractor, as existed in the past; or, 2) to appoint an independent third-party monitor to develop, implement, and/or monitor, actions to improve the work environment and safety culture within the Palisades Security Department.