NRC Chairperson Mcfarland Speaking To Me Under The Table

This secret message in a bottle and now Magwood is out.

Unquestionably Chairman Macfarland was sending me and the industry a message. Now I am left to only read the tea leaves. Maybe you ain’t getting that huge impeller fragment out of the Palisade's core...but we will give you Magwood.

I just think this means, with a nice pat on the head, the highest echelon of the NRC and beyond are hearing your message...now just shut up and go away.

I just want some level of power, control and transparency...but I don't need ultimate control of anything. 

Originally posted on 2/11/2014

Me

Dear Chairperson McFarland, If you really believed this from your recent speech… “As we continue to strive for effective, credible regulation, and assist other regulators in upholding these values

To Chairman@nrc.gov

Today at 2:43 PM

Dear Chairperson McFarland,

If you really believed this from your recent speech…

“As we continue to strive for effective, credible regulation, and assist other regulators in upholding these values, our commitment to continuous learning is critical. I believe that when we demonstrate that our decisions reflect the best available information, and when we demonstrate openness to external interlocutors, it enhances public confidence. This is an objective I’ve embraced since my tenure at NRC began, and I continue to believe in its importance.”

…you’d help me gain much better transparency in my upcoming Palisades 2.206. The 2.206 processes for an outsider are a travesty and circus. It is designed for an outsider to fail most of the time because of a lack of evidence. It should be a firing or disciplinary offence if a NRC employee ever misleads a petitioner or to withheld information from inside this process. You’d make a licensee answerable to my questions or severe consequences.

How about all petitioners’ activities and the whole process be recorded and put on your NRC internet site?

There is a tremendous difference in power between me and the NRC/licensee...while you guys have almost unlimited god like powers to withhold information based on unseen justifications. I remain utterly powerless and have no rights of transparency within this process. But I do have the right to get my letter in the NRC documents, and of course, I get a shot for you to transcribe my words by a telephone bridge to many NRC employees. I have to admit there is substantial power in this for a petitioner.

If you really believed what you wrote, you would help me overhaul the NRC’s 2.206 process. You would think this current system is a tremendous injustice to a petitioner, the community and mostly to the USA.

The agency should also provide me with a senior experience NRC executive...where his job is to serve a petitioner. Her job is to help me with this NRC process...explain to me in a high level position way what is going on with my issue and figure out how to get the information I need ...she is to be tasked with being my inside the NRC advocator. She would be like my special NRC lawyer...

I honestly think this would make the industry more stronger and resilient...

Sincerely,

Mike Mulligan

Hinsdale, NH
steamshovel2002@yahoo.com

16033368320

 ...Reply, Reply All or Forward | More

CHAIRMAN ResourceThis is to acknowledge receipt of your communication to the Chairman of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Thank you for your input. Office of the Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

To Me

Today at 3:59 PM

This is to acknowledge receipt of your communication to the Chairman of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Thank you for your input.

Office of the Secretary

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Is NRC commissioner chairperson Allison M. Macfarlane sending me a message in her most recent speech? 

'Continued Learning: The Best Defense against an Uncertain Future'

"The NRC staff’s work has focused on better positioning the reactor fleet to respond to future “unknown unknowns”." The below is my latest petition to the NRC concerning the Palisades nuclear plants.

‘Palisades 2.206 PCP Broken Impeller: Emergency Request to Stay Shutdown’

My quote:

“Engineers make sense out of the apparent available evidence...I worry about the unknown unknowns. Donald Rumsfeld: ‘Reports that say that something hasn't happened are always interesting to me, because as we know, there are known knowns; there are things we know that we know. There are known unknowns; that is to say, there are things that we now know we don't know. But there are also unknown unknowns – there are things we do not know we don't know”.”

McFarland’s speech:

We’re focusing our energies and resources on the most safety-significant issues and re-aligning our efforts when appropriate to ensure we’re operating in the most effective and efficient manner possible. 

I believe there are four safety zones: emergent, safety insignificant, safety significant and the event.

The history of accidents and events in the nuclear industry informs us a flaw emerges, it is detectable and we ignore it for a prolong period of time. The flaw picks up enormous inertia, then shoots though safety insignificant and safety significant zone not seeable into the beginning of the accident. Most of the big events in the industry became observably emergent and safety insignificant…then shoots though the unobservable into the safety significant zone and on to the accident realm.

Scientific wise, you would have to say all accidents emerges and it is always seen in the safety significant zone…but the study or accidents and safety teaches us this accident prevention philosophy (most) is patently falsifiable! Davis Besse is a clear example of that. Safety significance is a economic and profit realm...it has nothing to do with safety. It is more a political or business profit centric philosophy or ideology.

So knowing all safety significant events is a terribly insufficient barrier with preventing all accidents… missing safety insignificance defects are more deadly that missing safety significant flaws and the consequences are worst.