From: "Nieh, Ho"
To: "Steamshovel2002@yahoo.co m"
Sent: Mon, May 10, 2010 5:35:44 PM
Subject: Commissioner Ostendorff's remarks during Senate hearing
Dear Mr. Mulligan,
Thank you for your comment on May 8, 2010, on the OpenNRC website. On May 5, 2010, Commissioner Ostendorff made the following statement during the NRC oversight hearing before the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, Subcommittee on Clear Air and Nuclear Safety:
"So far, to date, none of the water samples taken at any of the plants have had any groundwater contamination in excess of the 20,000 picocuries per liter."
You are correct in pointing out this misstatement. The Commissioner’s intention was to say that, to date, no local drinking water samples taken near any NRC-licensed nuclear power plant have had tritium levels in excess of the 20,000 picocuries per liter limit set by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Commissioner Ostendorff intends to correct this matter for the record of the hearing.
Sincerely,
Ho Nieh
Chief of Staff
Office of Commissioner William C. Ostendorff
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
We had millions of picocuries (4) water in the ground for god know how long and it did leak into the Connecticut river. They killed the nearby well pump and wouldn't allow testing...
William Ostendorff, GOP-Appointed Regulator, Under Investigation For Thwarting Nuclear Safety Probe
Posted: 08/15/2012 1:13 pm Updated: 08/15/2012 3:14 pm
Ryan Grimm
Excerpts:
"While Jaczko was touring the plant on May 31st, according to the sources, a significant leak of potentially radioactive water was pouring into the control room. Less than two weeks later, the plant was shut down to repair the leak. Yet Jaczko was never made aware of the issue while inspecting the plant. He asked the NRC's Office of Investigations to look into why the leak was kept from him.
Commissioner William Ostendorff, however, wanted no such investigation to take place. Shortly after Jaczko ordered it, Ostendorff shouted at the top agency investigator, Cheryl McCrary, in front of several NRC employees. He told her that the inquiry should be halted and that it was a "waste of agency resources," according to the sources, who were briefed on the exchange by witnesses.
The probe into Ostendorff is the latest tussle in an ongoing war inside the agency over how to regulate the industry -- whether to take a trusting, hands-off approach, or to apply the rules in a serious way. It's a battle being fought all across Washington, as longtime advocates of deregulation argue that government bureaucrats are stifling job creation. Inside some industries, deregulation might tilt the balance of power away from consumers and workers, but in the nuclear industry, the consequences involve life and death."
My Palisades 2.206
12) May I please have a meeting with the Palisades inspectors and other inspectors to discuss the conditions of Palisades before the petition board pre-hearing.
2) Heads need to roll in Region III and at headquarters for tolerating and covering up these very serious safety problem at Palisades and throughout the Entergy organization. This all has the potential to gravely damage our nation.
Right, was this retribution for speaking my mind.
They told me they all discussed this e-mail and they misinterpreted that I wanted the to speak in the PRB.
So why didn’t they answer me this other question:
I mean, is there a 2.206 agency head or somebody in charge of the 2.206 process that i can talk to about my frustration with the 2.206 process?
And I directly answered him:
FROM:
Michael Mulligan
TO:
Thursday, August 9, 2012 4:20 PM
Mr
Please set it up at your convenience...so it will be a teleconference please. If you pay the freight and my accommodations, I could come to Washington to give my plea. Hey, you never know if you don't ask?
As with the recent VY tie issues and the request for the new diesel generator...I find it impossible to have a open and true discussion about the problems in the nuclear industry with the agency. I have very little information and the NRC fails to help educate me on the issues, or provide transparent information surrounding a nuclear plant...as I am not allowed access to a nuclear site. I have to trust the agency to be my eyes and ears to get a fair government process because a utility wouldn't give me a level playing field with gaining the appropriate information. We know your rules don't allow the NRC to give me a level playing field opportunity with all the facts or any facts, with all the information. This limits my effectiveness with engaging the Petition Board. I could make a case there would be a lot less turmoil and accidents in the industry...thus better public credibility of the agency and the nuclear industry...if I had a constitutional-democracy style transparency mandated level playing field with insider information. Fundamentally with the VY Vernon Dam, this make my case I can't trust the agency to have a full and open discussion about my concerns in the 2.206 process. Right, me fighting for a DG over the Vernon tie since 2010, then we discovered new grid vulnerabilities, and the ISO and the NRC forces VY-Entergy to get a DG before the turn of this year. This has nothing to do with Palisades, but it expresses my frustration with the 2.206 process. I am involved with talking to the NRC next week about this issue.
So yes, I would like to speak to the petition review board about Palisades.
I mean, is there a 2.206 agency head or somebody in charge of the 2.206 process that i can talk to about my frustration with the 2.206 process?
I find it beyond gracious of the agency and I am impressed the agency remembered this request...please may i speak to the said officials about Palisades recent problems before the 2.206:
"Additionally, you requested to speak with the NRC Resident and/or Regional inspectors prior to the teleconference. Do you still seek that request?
Mike
He posed the question:
From:
To: 'Michael Mulligan' <steamshovel2002@yahoo.com>
Sent: Thursday, August 9, 2012 3:34 PM Subject: RE: Palisades 2.206 Petitions dated June 27, 2012 and June 28, 2012 (G20120443 and G20120492)
Mr. Mulligan
We’ll continue to limit the meeting to one hour, but that’s certainly an admirable attempt.
Please let me know whether you still request to address the PRB. If so, do you require a teleconference or a meeting at Headquarters. The PRB can support a meeting in next couple of weeks.
Additionally, you requested to speak with the NRC Resident and/or Regional inspectors prior to the teleconference. Do you still seek that request?
Thank you.
Sincerely,
No comments:
Post a Comment