Proposed Director's Decision on My Palisades PCP Impeller Blades!

It will be significant if I catch them all on this.

It will be so sweet if they really need a 50.59 and the staff didn't catch them on it??? 

Jan 26 at 12:32 PM 

Dear Michele G. Evans, 

https://adamswebsearch2.nrc.gov/webSearch2/main.jsp?AccessionNumber=ML14338A435 

Thank you for the NRC's response. The report was pretty detailed. I am sure people will look at me admiring if a worst PCP blade problem occurs or Palisades and the facility continues to develop bad plant problems. Got to love that new CDBI inspection results at this old plant. 

Information Notice No. 85-03: Separation of Primary Reactor Coolant Pump Shaft and Impeller

The scenario not explained yet by the NRC yet is: A set of blades getting flung off and creating a bad vibration issues with the pump. The staff then doesn’t think it is that bad and continues to run the pump. The vibration level build up to where it damages “all” the pump seals and this creates a LOCA. On the above IN, they almost separated the impeller from the shaft. 

Remember a nuclear plant doesn't need a severe core melt to get a license yanked...all they need is for the public to lose trust in the plant.
Thank you for answering me.
Sincerely,

Michele G. Evans(NRR): Mulligan’s Palisades 2.206

Mrs. Rankin, 

Additional Concerns: 

I think an accident coming out of broken PCP impeller blades is basically too complex to understand. I honestly don’t think anyone really understands completely how or why these blades fail. What can happen in the future not contrary to licensing. The normal way they handle this is they make a quality requirement over the global uncertainties. Why isn't there a quality requirement where these impellers are supposed to be replaced before cracks and broken blades shows up? 

Why isn't this an adverse to quality” violation? I am not certain how the USFAR and licensing treats quality for the PCP components “Why isn't this related to a 10 CFR 50.59 or licensing amendment request? I considered the PCP impeller problem contrary to plant licensing and the USFAR. Why didn't “not operating to plant licensing”, the NPSH issue…not cycle through a 50.59 or licensed amendment request change? I request the Palisades Plant immediately comply with all NRC regulations and UFSAR requirements. 

As far as the Salem plant primary coolant pump problem and Palisades plant PCP problems being dissimilar…I disagree. Basically defects have shown up in prior outage and inspections at both plants. The licensees and the NRC failed to immediately correct the problem. I fear this attitude would carry over to a much larger problem…where the licensee and the NRC would detect an incipient early problem and decide not to repair it. Then it leads to a much larger problem later on or it becomes a runaway repetitive problem. It is noticed the NRC doesn't do a comprehensive inspection write up about the early problems. You wait until to you are hunting around inside the core and coolant piping for broken off blades and missing screws to comprehensively report on it. I could make a case these inspection reports are still rather skimpy. 

Does the NRC have any actually testing with these 4000 hp pumps…proof…that the loose ductile blades won’t shatter the impeller? 

I have issues with the transparency of the OIG. Your staff reports these issues to the OIG. But there is no paperwork trail (like on the docket) that I can see showing you sent documents to the OIG and OIG never contacts me indicating they'd seen my concern and it is taken into consideration one way or another? 

I wish I had an industry wide perspective on PCP impeller blade problem? The blade problem seems only related to Palisades. I request the LERs and inspection reports on PCP problem be more comprehensively. This is an early indicator with licensee and safety culture problem. The public should see this.

Sincerely,Mike MulliganHinsdale, NH16033368320

ACTION: Proposed director's decision under 10 CFR 2.206;issuance. [7590-01-P]

SUMMARY: The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is issuing a proposed director's decision with regard to a petition dated March 5, 2014, as supplemented on April 8, May 21, and September 3, 2014, filed by Mr. Michael Mulligan (the petitioner), requesting that the NRC take action with regard to Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. (ENO or the licensee) at Palisades
Nuclear Plant (PNP). The petitioner's requests and the proposed director's decision are included in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document.