May 11, 2013:
(Re-Published from April 11, 2013)
May 9, 2013
These documents came out post my Pilgrim 2.206 and post the beginning of refueling outage. It is suspicious as hell.
Right, widespead Curtiss Wright organizational issue with maintaining quality assurance and the quality of nuclear safety components...multiple runaway organizational QA issues with the NRC, Entergy, Curtiss Wright and Target Rock.
They structured the release of these documents till Entergy got into the outage...all this information was available for distribution months before their officials release...
I am sure the NRC is shocked I actually taped the session and the implication are I taped them all
I could show you how so out of character this session was with the other recordings!
If I could just knock off saying my "you knows", I could save hours of time from my YouTubes. I am talking way too long to explain what happened on my 2.206.
Does the NRC allow a utility to intentionally state incomplete and inaccurate License Event Reports?
My pretend 2.206 presentations.
PRB 2...I don't know what happened to the thumbnail...
NH Union Leader: worst NE ISO grid crisis in memory...how the erratic operating Pilgrim plant and the worst grid crisis in memory are connected.
National or Regional Emergency: secret government policy to weaken safety at nuke plants in a severe grid power crisis?
Commissioner William C. Ostendorff beautiful speech on nuclear safety...and him knowing Region I is a old style Russian Oligarchy.
Where did the good people go
Generalist versus hyper-specialization.
My e-mail today to Mr. Guzman and a additional e-mail to show you its contextuality! My lawyers felt it was less risk to me if I didn't put up their voice recording...it is safer to get it from them for now.
From: Michael Mulligan
To: "Guzman, Richard"
Sent: Friday, April 12, 2013 10:10 AM
Subject: Re: 2.206: Pilgrim Nuclear Plant SRV Request for Emergency Shutdown
Mr Guzman,This is a recording of my 2.206 hearing yesterday...I will be shortly putting up a video showing the public how it should have gone.Want me to put up a prior recording of how a real hearing should have gone? I don't mind disruptions... but all of your disruptions yesterday was about telling me my take wasn't germane to the Pilgrim and a attempt to hurry me up so you could go to your lunch. I would like the public to hear the contemptuous tone of your voice to me.I request a "do over" and the next hearing run according to management directive 8.11. Request the agency send me the voice recording of this meeting yesterday.I will be sending a e-mail to Representative Markey's office also.Mike MullianHinsdale, NHFrom: Michael Mulligan
To: "Guzman, Richard"
Sent: Monday, April 8, 2013 3:27 PM
Subject: Re: 2.206: Pilgrim Nuclear Plant SRV Request for Emergency Shutdown
Mr. Guzman,Thanks, I see it now today.Is your agency totally blowing me off on my earlier request to speak with a Pilgrim resident inspector and a senior region 1 official (like region III did for me with palisades)?Can't even send me an email saying the request was denied, give me a reason...that would be the professional way of handling it?After all that recent hard talk with the community and the Plymouth selectman about poor NRC communications and agency mistrust during the Pilgrim performance meeting?ThanksMike MulliganHinsdale, NH
April 7, 2013
I felt the petition manager as being perturbed, irked at me...he was blatantly contemptuous of me wasting his and the other NRC official's time. I honestly think he was trying to incite my anger...then the NRC could use that as an excuse to prohibit me from participating in any further 2.206s.
Think about the control of time management with him and the NRC with scheduling another meeting within 10 minutes of the ending of my 2.206...
Honestly, I think that the next meeting after this 2.206 was made up...to use as a tool to incite my anger.
I made two voice recordings. So I have recorded just my conversation during the petition board and then I recorded my conversation and the inputs from the NRC officials...
I had a 2.206 meeting with the NRC over pilgrim. It didn't go like any other. The petition manager asked we could just skip the general explanation of the 2.206 process.. I have never been asked that before. So I agreed...thought that would just give me extra time to explain my position. He has to go by a format of 2.206 directive...so he has to explain the 2.206 process and a general explanation of my petition. So we just skipped through that step and I now think it was inappropriate.
So he gave me the floor...he kept disrupting me throughout the 45 minutes. He would say that is not germane to Pilgrim...he was censoring me with what I could say. He would constantly interrupt me with "time is" running out" beginning 10 minutes into my speech. He told me more than once I got a prior commitment ten minutes after you get done, basically hurry up.
This petition manager was trying to censure me with what i was saying and he was trying to intimidated me into throwing me off my stride. He was trying to minimize the chance of getting my ideas on the NRC paperwork.
What in the hell is going on at Entergy, Pilgrim and Region!?
The antis recently gave the NRC a hard time at a yearly pilgrim safety meeting... was he trying to get even to me over that and show me how it feels to be disrupted. The NRC is supposed to be bigger than the antis. I wasn't at that meeting in Pilgrim and I wouldn't handle myself in that kind of disruptive manner.
I had many 2.206s (20-40) and this was run radically different than any in the past.
This 2026 Petition manager with vast experience doesn't have the temperament to interact with the general public!
I am going to ask for a immediate "do over" and for the agency to give me the voice recording of my Pilgrim 2.206..me and the NRC officials in the meeting. You know I am going to stick it out on the internet.
A flag raised upside down is international signal with a person or group being in extreme distress and peril...
The part that is missing is the petition manager saying this meeting is from say 11 am to 12 am...mike you will have something like 35 to 45 minutes to speak. They set the boundaries of the meeting time...they give me a 5 minute warning that your time is almost up.
I think the guy was pissed off this meeting was cutting into his lunch time...
So this is excepts from my most recent Vermont Yankee 2.206 petition
Tuesday, April 2, 2013
I don't believe this was included in today's NRC explanation...it was scheduled for an hour from such and such a time.
As part of the Petition Review Board's review of this petition, Mr. Michael Mulligan has requested this opportunity to address the PRB. This meeting is scheduled from 9:00 to 10:00 a.m.The below is boiler plate.
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.
This process permits anyone to petition NRC to take enforcement-type action related to NRC licensees or licensed activities. Depending on the results of this evaluation, NRC could modify, suspend, or revoke an NRC-issued license, or take any other appropriate enforcement action to resolve a problem.
The NRC staff guidance for the disposition of 2.206 petition's request is Management Directive 8.11, which is publicly available.See, the below states I can make any kind of comment or explanation I think would support my petition... but I have to be respectful to the PRB board. I am talking to both the PRB board and to the public at large through the NRC's documented system. I just don't have to meet the so called needs of the PBR board. They were playing me to excite my anger.
The purpose of today's meeting is to give the Petitioner an opportunity to comment on the PRB's initial recommendation to not accept the petition and a second opportunity to provide any additional explanation or support for the petition.Right, basically no information of any kind on the problems of the SRVs has been disclosed to the public...evidence wise, I don't have a leg to stand on. But that is not my fault...it is the secrecy of the NRC and Entergy that is causing my lack of evidence.
So all meetings, well most, are scheduled for a hour. Then you got 45 minutes for your presentation. So why all this "get to the point" and hurry up", this is not appropriated material, I got a meeting ten minutes after this ends. Why all this pushing to not waste time...I know it is already rejected?
The Petitioner will have 45 minutes to address the PRB. This meeting is not a hearing, nor is it an opportunity for the Petitioner to request or examine the PRB on the merits or the issues presented in the petition request. No decisions regarding the merits of the petition will be made at this meeting.Boiler plate:
I would like to describe the scope of the petition under consideration and the NRC activities to date. On December 5, 2012, Mr. Mulligan submitted to the NRC a petition under 2.206 regarding the Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station. Mr. Mulligan requested an immediate shutdown of Vermont Yankee because, in Mr. Mulligan's words, "the NRC and Entergy can't keep their nuclear safety paperwork and documents accurate and up to date."This is when they began shortening their explanation on my petition back on the Vermont Yankee. I admit this wasn't my best work product to the NRC. I never considered thinking about what is in their interest of shortening their explanation of my petition and the process. What is the agency's hidden agenda with it.
He also requested additional actions, which I will not state now unless someone would like me to on the call.The management directive exactly means what is says: "allow you to provide any information that you believe the PRB should consider as part of the petition."
They were harassing me with trying control the content "any information" I was providing to the NRC.
Mr. Mulligan, I will now turn it over to you to allow you to provide any information that you believe the PRB should consider as part of the petition.So all the NRC's comments and questions were about controlling my speech and hurrying me up....none of the question were about asking me for technical clarifications about my petition.
Basically I got a little riled with what was happening to me ...I clicked a icon on my computer one too many times...my computer froze up on me. I had a set of talking points and I practiced what I was going to say on each point for two days... that is what this cost me. The rest of my presentation came from my head.
No comments:
Post a Comment