Update Feb 13
Why isn’t there a LER on this...and why wasn’t there a analysis of putting a automatic closing mechanism on it or if the door mechanism was broken?
My opinion is the plant is overwhelmed with incidences, events and breaking and degrading equipment, that there is insufficient manpower and people with adequate training and education, the NRc inspectors are overwhelmed, and there just isn't enough people to keep up with the analysis, paperwork, procedures and documentation.
Palisades: 05000255/2008002
On January 8, 2008 while conducting a tour, the inspectors noted door 71, the fire door between the C bus safety-related switchgear room and the 1-1 EDG room, open about two inches. The fire door is a three-hour door which separates Fire Area 4 from Fire Area 5. Although there is an auto-closure mechanism on the door, when the ventilation system cycles on, the door will not close without assistance. Because the finding is of very low safety significance and has been entered into the licensee’s corrective action process as CR-PLP-2008-00075, this violation is being treated as an NCV consistent with Section VI.A of the Enforcement Policy: NCV 05000255/2008002-01, "Failure to Ensure Fire Door Was Closed.”
Updated at 3:00PM
Can't you the NRC saying this faslification isn't safety related...
I believe I sent this to the OIG...but they never answer me or anyone else back? I hope these messages all get entered into the adams. The below issue is actually associated with my petition with the Palisades plant...the boron in the fuel pool!
Message74 The falsification is in LER-008-004-00. Entergy-Palisades declares cold bloodily they discovered the violation, while later they admitted it was a NRC raised violation. Why is the document still inaccurate to this day...we know the NRC has looked over this document as seen in the comments of the inspection reports. It should be noted in the recent root cause and corrective action NRC inspection report Entergy repeatedly admitted they haven’t clearly indicated accurately in their own paper work if it was a NRC identified findings. How deep does this self deception go...what is the extent of conditions?
They do a lot safety analysis and licensing amendments reduction in safety margin things with LERs. So they would do, as a example, a search of how many NRC identified problems they discovered in the whole industry or a particular licensee. If they don’t admit it was a NRC identified findings, then the search and how they use the product of the search is suspect. As a extreme, all problems are licensee identified and the NRC never found a problem that we didn’t know about.
I have reason to suspect a lot of the plants’ use this kind of format of not identifying if it is a NRC identified finding. The accuracy of all the LERs are suspect...meaning the integrity of the pool of LERs is poisoned.
The point is, I had long term issues with the OIG...
Nov 5, 2010...The falsification is in LER-2008-004-00...
So these are the potential female culprits Chairman Quay gave his refrain to have fun too.
Its gota be to Nancy of the communication branch...
PETITION REVIEW BOARD MEMBERS
MERRILEE BANIC, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, Generic Communications Branch
NANCY SALGADO, NRR, Division of Operating Reactor Licensing
ANDREA RUSSELL, NRR, Division of Policy and Rulemaking
Mr. Kim,
These are two inaccurate LERs I am talking about. No wonder the HB Robinson has had trouble with LER accuracy because the NRC doesn't enforce completeness and accuracy across the board, or creates enough fear in the industry that everyone reports the whole truth. I have a concern with falsification in a recent Grand Gulf inspection report. We know most of the LER factual information across the nation, if they write one, gets flipped into the propriety and secret corrective action program. I don't think the LER rules allow that. It is just a huge reversal from the lessen learned coming from TMI...you can only trust the actions from open public reports and declarations.
1) Course, the most humorous LER in the bunch is Fitzpatrick's LER: 2009-004-00 "Loss of Control Room Envelope Boundary". Like, how many times does it take for the NRC to make known a concern before the Fitzpatrick staff gets it? We have no idea if the multiple times issue was addressed. I think it is extremely pertinent that the NRC discovered it over and over again, this important information was missing in the LER that the NRC kept discovering of the problem. How come it wasn't positively declared it was discovered by the NRC, and we made a mistake in not finding it ourselves.
2) Arkansas Nuclear One, Unit 1: 2009 - 003 - 00 Unanalyzed Condition That Significantly Degraded Plant Safety Existed Intermittently Due to an Unlatched Door Serving as a High Energy Line Break Barrier. What is interesting in this is all the issues that was uncovered and not discussed in the LER...I guess this is Entergy short form LER. No mention the NRC discovered it and that makes it inaccurate. We get no idea why the NRC dropped it eventually. Was it Entergy abuse or was it a abuse of the NRC to Entergy by hounding them..the inspections reports and LER doesn't it at all make clear what going on?
3) November 9, 2010 GRAND GULF - NRC INTEGRATED INSPECTION REPORT 05000416/2010004
"Green. The inspectors identified a Green noncited violation of 10 CFR 50 Appendix B Criterion V for failure to perform required inspections of safetyrelated plant structures. Specifically, the inspectors found inspections that had been only partially performed and some areas that had not been documented as inspected. Subsequent walkdowns identified several deficiencies including concrete cracks and spalling, deficient coatings, rusted tanks and exposed rebar. The licensee entered this issue into the corrective action program as Condition Report CR-GGN-2010-06871."
Inspections, paperwork and following procedures were grossly inaccurate, and I believe this is a follow up to past issues. Do they have a Vermont Yankee growing up down south?
...As far as my last 2.206 petitions pre-hearing, the comment by chairman Quay of "This will be fun for you " is a affront to the public and the Petition process. It was deeply disrespectful to a petitioner. But I think that is a perfectly honest phrase explaining the people have absolutely no power to gather independent information and thus the ability to participate in the petition process. It has become a game to Chairman Quay, me and the NRC in dealing with a completely dysfunctional agency and public process. Chairman Quay should be prohibited from ever being involved in 2.206 process again. He really owns me and the people around Vermont Yankee nuclear plant a public apology.
Honesty, the indoctrinating of a newcomer to the board by the chairman with "This will be fun for you" phrase should be the impetus to overhaul the 2.206 process. How widespread is this feeling within the agency...their real feelings and not manufactured. I think this cracked open a window allowing us to see a facet of the agency never before seen...a hidden secret culture within the NRC.
I also request the "voice recording" of this whole proceeding be made public from your web site...including whatever was recorded before and after I came on the telephone line. I was in a state of shock once I heard that phrase...utterly in a shocked state. I bet you could detect my emotional state by listening to the recording. There is a sense you turn off the mic in all of your public recoded processes before and after testimony because of the fear of what you say to yourselves under the sheets.
One can only image what the NEI would do if they ever got connected to a NRC phone line concerning nuclear utilities issues, and overheard the staff saying "This will be fun for you." I will bet you nothing about this is fun now. You got to know lots of heads would roll if this complaint came from the NEI or a large nuclear utility.
Thanks,
Mike Mulligan
Hinsdale, NH
Title: 10 CFR 2.206 Petition Review Board RE Vermont Yankee
Thursday, February 3, 2011
CHAIRMAN QUAY: At this point I would like to turn it over to Mr. Mulligan.
MR. Mulligan: Hello. I've got to get this on the record. When you first pushed the button when I came on the phone, I heard a snippet of information and the snippet of information was, "Let's have a little fun." What was that about?
CHAIRMAN QUAY: That was me. I was welcoming a new Board member. She hasn't been here before and I said, "This will be fun for you." The reason I said that is it's a new experience. It's an experience which all of us need to have is interacting and learning how to interact with the public.
MR. MULLIGAN: Who is this?
CHAIRMAN QUAY: This is Ted Quay.
MR. MULLIGAN: Okay.
CHAIRMAN QUAY: Okay?
MR. MULLIGAN: Thank you...
No comments:
Post a Comment