Friday, June 22, 2012

Palisades Safety Injection Refueling Water Tank 2.206

June 21, 2012: Request Emergency Palisades Shutdown


My old Feb 22, 2011 2.206, actually dating back to 2010.

"God help us all, can you see the problem with the repetitive nature of Entergy having the instincts to not the due proper inspections... to do it over and over again like a madman. They are laughing at us and the NRC because these employees and managers know we can't control them. The NRC has no ability to control Palisades...that is my god damned political statement to the NRC."

June 18, 2012


R. William Borchardt
Executive Director for Operations
US Nuclear Regulatory Commission
Washington, DC 20555-0001

Dear Mr. Borchardt,








Feb 22, 2011 and Jan 10, 2012 2.206:   
“Subject 2.206: Request a emergency shutdown of Palisades because the Reactor Oversight Program is ineffective and Entergy has a documented history of a culture of falsification and thumbing their noses at reoccurring violations. It should be noted in this inspection period most of the fleet of Entergy’s plants are on fire and burning in the Gulf of Mexico with numerous NRC inspection findings including Grand Gulf, River Bend, Arkansas One and Cooper.
And we sit in the shadow the River Bend’s troublesome plant trip and the restart, then the subsequent shutdown with three leaking safety relief valves and Augment Inspection Team, how can you say there are not be systemic problems with Entergy? You had a short in a motor, then the first safety breaker relay failed to stop the fault. It was a cascade effect and other pieces of equipment were affected.  Is it just me with the nuclear industry, there has been a rash of recent electrical equipment and switchgear faults and shorts, and the first safety breakers and relays fails to operate and stop the massive short. If you want my opinion, the wires and electrical (switchgear, breakers and safety devices) will lead to a limiting accident before the pipes do. In truly Palisades nuclear plant biblical proportion,  the last River Bend’s NRC inspection uncovered nine violation. Theses guys are riddled with similar violation throughout the year, as their brother plant Palisades is. This is a systemic problem with Entergy and the NRc doesn’t have the power to control it before this company damages the nuclear industry.

Now we got repetitive electrical shorts in the VY Recirc MGs and heavy smoke in the reactor building. Got a assortment of states desperately trying to shutdown Entergy’s nuclear plants because nobody trust these guys. Unbelievable union troubles at the Pilgrim nuclear plant and rumors the union employees sabotage the plant by tripping it in the union action while the state of Massachusetts is trying to put hold on their relicencing. Massachusetts and Vermont are more persistent than me. It is a double hitter going on over there is New York  

The NRC is probably going to call the leaking Safety Injection Refueling Water tank (SIRW) shutdown a planned shutdown. Seeing how for a indeterminate amount of time, certainly before the last outage, they knew the tank was leaking and did nothing. They didn’t care the leaking 300,000 gal tank sits above the control room with all the invaluable instrumentation and all those electrical cables.


 And only god knows where they were collecting the allowable leakage that they didn’t where it was coming from and what it was running down on. Were they measuring all the leakage?  I can imagine this tank failing with the water filling up the control room and suffocating all control room operators. 

 They had a opportunity to drain it and fix it in the safety of a shutdown outage. This was a totally preventable and unnecessary shutdown. A rash of planned and not planned shutdowns and plant trips prematurely wears out a lot of equipment in a nuclear plant. This leads to the risk of more shutdowns  and drives bad accidents. Ask Palisades about this overcome.  This is a indication Entergy doesn’t know how to run a plant and maintain it. I request the NRC characterize this as a unplanned shutdown because of how egregiously not conservative it has been.

So this is the record going into the last outage and the red finding:  

“Palisades had five unplanned shutdowns in 2011. Because of that the power plant now has one of the worst safety ratings in the country.”

NRC concerns:
·         Organizational failures
·         The need for a recovery plan
·         Poor quality work instructions
·         Failure to follow procedures
·         Poor supervision and oversight of work
·         Poor maintenance
·         Failure to respect the role of an operator
·         Multiple events caused by personnel or equipment failures
·         Questionable safety structure

Language As a Technology of Exclusivity and Special Rules

I framed it as the NRC engineer’s language picks and chooses what issues they bring to the public table and it is immoral. They create a architecture of have engineering half truths and misconceptions in the language structure they make to a community. Vermont, Massachusetts and New York don’t think the NRC has the ability to control chaos at a plant...always got some agency rule trap door leading to all bad behavior is acceptable and nothing ever matters at a nuclear power plant. As long as the public can’t see the bad behavior mean nothing is ever wrong. A structure of selective self interested truths and thus the whole building becomes one enormous inscrutable lie. It’s the history of this industry to tell half truths in defense of self interest and their perception of doing good. It is how you think you doing good and end up destroying 100,000s of jobs and damaging a great nation in the ends of altruism. These guys invented the corporate and government crazy talk phraseology of the 1970’s and 1980’s.

I have seen this over and over again where the agency uses a special language, and a assortment of language rules and engineering rules, supposedly engineer’s speak, as a intention tool of understanding disruption and public  knowledge sabotage. These guys are a cohesive mafia honor culture of half truths and it always ends up as the nuclear industry repetitively shooting themselves in the foot. The industry is sabotage their employee’s future for ideology and profit to special people.

This is primarily a crisis of truth telling and the US government doesn’t have a vehicle that demands on severe penalty insufficient truth telling. This is a age old crisis on “what is truth”?

A NRC official recently spoke of a engineer’s language.
Me:  As I spoken, it my feeling that the NRC engineer's language...picks and chooses engineering rationales and issues...indeed picks specific terms of a petitioner to meet a NRC agenda. What is going on is not pure science, it's mocking science and the public process. I am not talking about you, you were a nice guy trying to listen to me...but as the agency talks to me. I have no beef with you.

See I think NRC answers me in a benign and selective way...they answer me with a engineered interpretation of my words that favors the industry or NRC, not in the most unfavorable interpretation of what I am saying against the utility and NRC. I think this is on purpose and it may be the way they are trained to make a response. They could always called me to quiz a point I am really making.

So they expect me to challenge them further down the line with a come back. It is playing games hoping I will lack the initiative to answer them back.

It is just not being straight and direct...it is a form of coercion and corruption.

The official: “You expressed that the material facts of the seal (the temperature duration in radiation for example) had not been established through testing. Therefore, the NRC staff could not prove to you that the Buna-N threaded seal material is adequate for accident conditions as well as normal operating conditions. You also expressed that you felt that the NRC staff’s safety determination was merely “throwing engineering language” at you instead of addressing your concerns.”

Gaming Language: when did the SIRW tank begin leaking?
Here is a prime example the engineer’s language . And I will tell you something, there is no engineer’s professional ethical code or legal requirement for these official to tell the full and complete truth in the media. There is no ethical code requiring the nuclear officials to tell the full truth to the public. There is a bogus permissive for “competitive or propriety reasons” nothing ever should be disclosed without a huge fight to the public.
There is no law to hold these official accountable to the truth said in the media. Certainly there is no consequences for lying. These are public news announcements. 
The NRC was made aware of the leak in April when the plant shut down for refueling. Both Entergy and NRC inspectors monitored the leak. The plant set a limit that if more than 31 gallons leaked in a day, the plant would shut down, Mitlyng said. The plant's license specifies that no more than 34.8 gallons leak a day.
According to a news release from an Entergy spokesman, workers had been monitoring leakage from the plant's safety injection/refueling water tank for several days. but by 1:41 p.m. Tuesday, the leakage had surpassed the limits they set so the tank was declared inoperative.


Mark Savage is a spokesperson for Entergy, the company that owns the Palisades plant. He says this tank has been leaking for several weeks. It’s an old aluminum tank that holds 300,000 gallons of water. He says the tank is the same age as the Palisades plant: 40 years old.

How come Entergy’s Mr. Savage isn’t required to give all the factual information...how come in the shadow of the red finding they didn’t disclose when this leak began and the location of the tank? How come as a matter of community honor Mr. Savage didn’t initially disclose we got a leak in this tanks is and want do you think if ignore it and started up...what do you think if we ran it to the tech spec limit. What do you think if the unknown crack and leak was getting bigger and they said it won’t be until months until we are required to shutdown and find out what is leaking?      

The licensee believes that the tank is leaking from several locations. However, at this time, they cannot determine exact locations.
The Fallacy of Risk Based (regulation) Plant Operations

The best defense of safety for the plant is to have adequate safety margins, “as the designers intended the plant to be”. And the first nuclear safety culture precept in any deficiency in initial plant safety plant design, is you fully understand what is causing the barrier degradation. You can’t tell how bad the crack is until you eyeball it for yourself. Imagine that, there is no law requiring them know where a leak is. Engineering says for critical safety public interest you fully understand the magnitude of the degradation and what is causing a leak. How can you tell the difference between a insignificant leak and another insignificant leak, but the second insignificant leak is showing the potential for a catastrophic break. A leak of unknown engineering dimensions,  a leaking rate 10, 20 and 30 gals per day....the leak gives an engineer extremely limited information.

Davis Besse once had a safety insignificant safety leak and the information entrained with this increasing insignificant leak brought the nation to within 1/8 of a inch nuclear crisis. There were diligently measuring its increasing leakage rate as a unimaginable hole ate away inches of metal away from a reactor head. They tripped over the leak while shutdown, that is how they caught it.  

Right, it is how men make self interested rules based on personal advantage on how to interpret new information. It is not requiring a human to use his full astonishing mental capacities to interpret new information. You see the how risk related regulation allows the facility to make a safety determination based on very limited information. It gives the operators of a nuclear plant a permissive to act stupid for mere pennies. This 300,000 gal tank has very small 35 gal a day leak and it gives Entergy the permissive to not care why it is broken. You could have a minor earthquake, and their could be a degradation in the tank wall in which the whole tank spills into the bottom of the building. In nuclear power plant, there is many more safety angles other than just having enough water to cool a core. You might plenty of water, but not a way to get it to the care.  You see what I am saying, risk regulations allows them too base safety on just a fragment of information. A 300,000 gal tank:
It would take you 42 days to fill up this tank by a garden hose.

It is 15 average size swimming pools of water in the bottom of the reactor building or within the control room.. 

And then the size of the leak was increasing over months. It means some worsening process was ongoing and nobody thoroughly understood what the process was. Risk regulations is the permissive to make me think stupid and act in my own interest! None of this is nuclear safety! These concepts of blowing by the initial engineered safety tank design margins and not knowing what caused a tank leakage is a threat to the conservative safety assumption and actions country wide. It not what you know that kills you (leakage rate) in Davis Besse, it is the unknowns the leakage is telegraphing you.  This tank feeds all of the emergency make water for this nuclear reactor: high, medium and low pressure feed. It bad enough the utility doesn’t know right from wrong...but this is a grave principle of conservative nuclear safety that the agency doesn’t know right from wrong. As for the acceptance of a assurance on a Safety Injection Refueling tank leak with such a worsening indeterminate leakage and carrying so little factual information by Entergy, are there any real engineer’s with moral conscience voice left in the NRC?  Does the agency know how important missing information and selective data is with knowing and understanding safety? It is not the information and evidence you can see with your eyes...it is the missing information and evidence that is the killer.

Does risk perspectives make curiously, facts and evidence obsolete?

NRC concerns:
·         Organizational failures
·         The need for a recovery plan
·         Poor quality work instructions
·         Failure to follow procedurese
·         Poor supervision and oversight of work
·         Poor maintenance
·         Failure to respect the role of an operator
·         Multiple events caused by personnel or equipment failures
·         Questionable safety structure   

I always thought the ROP punishment for a utility’s bad behavior was to appease the wider public. It is to shallowly make the public feel better about nuclear power instead of making the industry better. It is to create a smoke screen to make the public think grand changes are underway for a bad utility. But it has no or little effect at changing utility bad behavior. Here is the absolute evidence just months away from a rare red finding. The ROP is just for show. Here is what the NRC thought of Entergy this past Feb in their red finding.  

For conservative assumptions, the inspectors reviewed the Apparent Cause Evaluation(ACE), corrective action documentation, the recovery plan and NRC inspection findings. The licensee determined that the apparent cause was managers making decisions based on meeting only minimum regulatory requirements. The inspectors concluded that based on the findings reviewed by the licensee, the licensee identified a reasonable apparent cause. However, the inspectors believe that the recovery plan elements related to address leadership engagement, correction of performance gaps and degradation of safety culture principles more accurately characterize the causes of the findings. In addition, the recovery plan includes broader actions that will more likely effect change. The ACE actions included training of supervisors on conservative decision making. While this is a reasonable step in eliminating the cross-cutting theme, management reinforcement of conservative decision making is necessary to achieve sustainable results. While the ACE corrective actions capture this through an observation form, the broader elements of the recovery provide a mechanism more likely to achieve sustainable results.

So here we are in a preventable shutdown. From the beginning before the outage Entergy knew they had a unknown defect in the  Safety Injection Refueling tank with a increasing leakage rate. They had a conservative opportunity to completely understand the nature of the leakage and repair it before the startup. It is right out of the mouths of the Entergy officials before the red finding and all the plant troubles... now with the SIRW tanks accident. Its right out of the mouth of the NRC talking about Entergy’s problems...they continue “only” meeting the minimum regulatory requirements and making poor conservative decision after all this self flogging back whipping and crying crocodile tears. It is as if pretty words in front of community and the promises they made to a nation have no meaning at all. It is all for show! We are all in a reality TV show and nothing has meaning at all except customer ratings. They don’t even care if all they are drawing is the losers in our society.  

Yet, where was the conservative influence of the NRC with making Entergy eat there own words in another component degradation. In their own words, “stop just meeting only the minimum regulatory requirement”? How come NRC behaves like reality tv where words and errant emotions have no meaning...where everything is a insignificant show. How come they don’t act like billions of dollars and our nation’s engineering reputation are at stake? How do you get them out of la la land...what will it take?

Does the agency put in credence in their own NRC inspection report words that condemned Entergy with only meeting minimum regulatory requirement, engagement of performance gaps and degradation of safety principles? Does the agency’s own words have any meaning at all and do they perform any organization force on maintaining safety principles in the whole of the nuclear industry? If congress told the NRC to rob a bank or destroy the nuclear industry through self serving rules...are the plant NRC inspector obliged on pain of the law to rob a bank or destroy their nuclear plants through indifference? Are promises to keep to a community and inspection report words just meaningless noises in the breezy? Is this reality tv disconnected from meaning?

NRC concerns:
·         Organizational failures
·         The need for a recovery plan
·         Poor quality work instructions
·         Failure to follow procedures
·         Poor supervision and oversight of work
·         Poor maintenance
·         Failure to respect the role of an operator
·         Multiple events caused by personnel or equipment failures
·         Questionable safety structure  

All of the nuclear safety principles the NRC has been espousing in the shadow of Palisades bad behavior post red finding should have drove the agency to make Entergy fully engineering wise understand the Safety Injection Refueling tank leak before start-up and bring that tank back to the initial plant safety design at earliest shutdown opportunity. The agency’s correct ‘inspection’ and red findings words to Entergy now condemn the agency itself.  The agency’ s nuclear industry philosophy are a disgrace to the world of nuclear power safety principles itself. The first principle to the community should have been to notify the public that the tank was leaking from a unknown location and the leakage rate was increasing, yet still meeting its tech spec limit from the moment it began leaking. In the shadow of one of the worst plants in the nation and a red finding, why does this information only show up in a emergency shutdown.

A conservative assumption based on the location of the tank, the leak rate is ramping up in a spike for unknown reasons...they should have scrammed the plant. 
They should have admitted the 300,000 leaking tank sat on top of the vital control room.  The agency should have asked the public what they thought about this condition when the leak first showed up. That is public participation. The first principle should have been complete truth and full discloser to the public in the shadow of the 4th worst operating plant in the nation. I certainly would have requested a immediate shutdown and repair of this tank from the moment the tank began leaking. It is beyond preposterous public credibility-wise in the shadow of Fukushima, that the agency didn’t admit the core cooling and make up tank was leaking and the utility didn’t know where and the extent of the damage till it directly challenge tech specs. Palisades and NRC secrecy facilitated the operation of a not safe nuclear power plant.  
In the shadow of Fukushima and the 4th most dangerous plant in the USA, should the agency be creating more plant operating super secrecy or more transparency?

Does the agency know right from wrong? Does the agency’s words of criticism to a poorly performing plant have any order creating meaning at all? Or are they just altruistic words broadcasted to the public without any internal backing what so ever.

So here I am giving two week warning on May 30 predicting based on the past behavior of Entergy that a controversial plant trip or a unplanned shutdown (June 12) was right around the corner. Congratulation Entergy that was a pathetic 34 days of continuous plant operation. Doesn’t that question how many shutdowns and plant trips they will have in the next cycle.

“I smell a troublesome plant trip in the air....”
“Come on, admit it?”

Is this the grand NRC “nothing ever matters” philosophy on leaking nuclear reactor safety system water leakage stated by a agency official. Does all that we know about accident warnings and precursors boil down to all nuclear plants are able to operate when some parts that are leaking. Does the NRC just act like reality TV viewer aren’t real...the community out there is fake...the world has no meaning and consequences at all?

And we sit in the shadow of another NRC disgrace in San Onophre. The new steam generators didn’t meet their original design specification. Who cares if nuclear components are always leaking and nobody is required to meet original design specification until a terrible accident shows up costing the ratepayers and our nation billions. Who cares, it acceptable in our rules, our rules are the primacy in our safety philosophy. Our rules are our god and our god is unanswerable to all outsiders.  Right, it all a reality TV show and nothing matters or has consequences. We are all protected because everything is fake. 

Who cares about if all or some reactor safety parts are leaking...who cares if the computer safety engineering codes don’t meet original design specification?   And she misrepresented it cause the leak has been getting bigger and nobody understood why and how it was leaking. There is not a higher safety principle in engineering than in fully understanding what is going on in a nuclear plant. I know what is going on with my indications and I can confidently predict the outcome of all my indications...no guess works and rolling the dice in this industry. Is this really the safety philosophy of the NRC?   

Nuclear plants are able to operate when some parts are leaking. "There is always some kind of leakage going on," Mitlyng said. "As long as it's very small and doesn't get bigger."
Here is an the emergent problem Palisades didn’t handle correctly in the recent past. It lead to a very serious plant accident and out of control plant trip. It set up a pattern of risk taking that lead to risking human life trying to keep the plant operating when maintenance work wasn’t done right and safety equipment wasn’t installed as originally designed. Other serious problems and this led to being one of the worst operating plant in the USA. Basically they had a so called minor indication of a fail equipment warning light  that they put off at fixing when the plant was in safe shutdown condition. Does it sound familiar?  This minor lamp defect led directly to a grossly botched installation of new breakers replacing obsolete breakers to a back up DC emergency electrical system. Honestly, talking about safety budgets and priorities...risk perspective...what proof do you got that insignificant problem won’t lead to a enormously mind boggling problem. There it is that insignificant problems lead directly to a incompetent nuclear operator and big national problems.  Here is the case that a perceive insignificant problem led to a degradation in the life blood of emergency electrical power to many nuclear plant safety devices. And with the Safety Injection Refueling Water tank leak of unknown location and degradation mechanism the chances they take just get bigger and bigger. What is wrong with you, our rules allows this. Our rules are your god!

Buddy, in a nuclear plant all priorities and budgets are immoral. You never know all the risk until you get down to the bottom of the rat hole...a sterile computer model is never as smart as our brains  and computors senses are not hard wired to the real world like ours. They found grave maintenance errors in the installation of this important safety gear while at power and they didn’t have the integrity to immediately shutdown the plant and fix it at a safe shut condition. The DC electricity plant trip and the leaking Safety Injection Refueling Water tank is the exact same issue derived from only meeting the minimum regulatory requirement. Rules carry so little information and our human brains can process so much information...our brains are so smart at discriminating important information from insignificant information. We do it much better than some blind and stupid rule.  But what can you do if a rule gives us all the permissive to act stupid...

 In Palisades words, this was a really insignificant lamp problem with the Fukushima emergency electricity system. I’ll makes the case insignificant lamp problem carried all the information about the up coming DC accident.

 Prior to the 2010 refueling outage 1R21, routine preventive maintenance performed per work order WO52025543-01 identified that the green status indication lights for the containment escape air lock MZ-50 were not working. Although CR-PLP-2010-3580 and work request WR210717 were issued at the time, this condition was not addressed until the troubleshooting activities scheduled for Thursday 09/22/11 under WO248834-01.

In the NRC’s words, this was all thought of as a insignificant problem until seem from the light of the history made of the DC bus plant trip. Did I once say it, all catastrophes emerge from inaccurately perceived insignificant problems.

During Refueling Outage (RFO) 21 in the fall of 2010, the licensee performed extensive maintenance on Panel D11-2, which included the replacement of 10 breakers inside the panel, as well as other maintenance activities. Any performance deficiencies associated with the maintenance conducted during RFO 21, which led to the instrument air transient that occurred on September 23, 2011, will be addressed in the fourth quarter NRC Integrated Inspection Report (IR) (05000255/2011005).  On Thursday, September 22, 2011, the licensee commenced a WO to troubleshoot the inoperative green indicating lights for Door MZ-50 (Emergency Airlock Lights). Through this investigation, all interlocks, indication lights, and limit switches for this door were found to be satisfactory. Since this door was due for its technical specification (TS) required surveillance test on Monday, September 26, 2011, the decision was made to conduct more troubleshooting activities to identify the cause of the indicating light issue.

The Safety Injection Refueling Water tank leak is much worst then the DC system short. It is the exact same accident with the NRC and Entergy accepting for self interest incomplete information around a safety system defect or degradation. The crack rules allows us the permission to not fully investigation a safety system degradation because risk regulation is designed to make us stupid.
The point I am trying to make is Entergy and the NRC has a habit of getting indications that problems are developing and they define it a minor they hear the zapping of a huge electrical short and this creates a troublesome plant tip with complication. All huge tragic accidents with body parts spued all over the place begin as insignificant problems that were ignore and approved by risk perspectives. They bury it in their bureaucratic maintenance document priority system for months and years. They wait until the last and worst possible moment in their work priority system...that drives the plant and employees into creating a grossly unprofessional plant transient. Of all the public back flagging over Entergy’s shameful red findings and poor behaviors over the last few years, in the last 6 months with both the agency and Palisades and now in shadowed of the SIRW leak,  they act/ acted as if they haven’t learn one lessen.

They keep recklessly repeating the bad behavior over and over again, no matter how much public back flogging they do to each other and the promises they make to the public and the community about changing their bad behaviors. As with a host of terribly poor utility’s behaviors like Entergy, Fort Calhoun, TVA and SCE, it is like the NRC is oblivious to their choices of not demanding a change in behavior from a bad utility. This is truly regulatory and NRC insanity. There are enormously costly consequences to our nation all around us right now. It is like the agency is running around utterly disconnected from the consequences of their choices and the outcomes of not being involved with controlling bad behaviors. The agency doesn’t understand cause and effect....or the agency doesn’t know how to drive effect.

Fed 22, 2011

'It would know the conditions (dysfunction) of the managers and employees, we would know every error of a policy, the absence of a procedure, rule or organization attribute, know perfectly every defect in every component. We would have the perfect gods eve view of the plant and the organization. Push the magic button, do we have a green, yellow or red light at Palisades, the NRC or Entergy?" 

Request Palisades nuclear power plant and all Entergy nuclear power plants be immediately shutdown.

NRC concerns:
·         Organizational failures
·         The need for a recovery plan
·         Poor quality work instructions
·         Failure to follow procedures
·         Poor supervision and oversight of work
·         Poor maintenance
·         Failure to respect the role of an operator
·         Multiple events caused by personnel or equipment failures
·         Questionable safety structure  

1) That the Safety Injection Refueling Water tank shutdown be defined as a unplanned shutdown.
2)  Request the NRC bump up the Palisades performance indication from red to the next level of V:  Unacceptable Performance.

3) Request an outside authority, nobody trust the NRC’s OIG...why didn’t the agency force Palisades Entergy to thoroughly investigate SIRW leak when the leak first appeared. Why didn’t the NRC make them fix it in the last safe shutdown period according to the agency’s own nuclear safety culture philosophy. 

4) Request top Palisades Management staff be fired and replaced before startup.

5) Request Entergy's corporate nuclear senior staff be fired and replaced before the restart of the plants.

6) Immediately request two addition NRC inspectors to be assigned to Palisades plant, and to all the rest of the troubled Entergy nuclear plants. There seems to be a few plants of the bunch that behave themselves.

7) Request the formation of a local public oversight panel around every plant.

8) Request a emergency NRC senior official oversight panel with the aims of reforming the ROP.

 9) Request a national NRC oversight panel of outsiders to oversee and report on the agency's activities. There should be a mixture of professional academic people and capable lay people.

10) There continues to be some heavy duty and exceedingly numerous findings of problems with Entergy plants' this inspection reporting cycle...do an analysis of why this is occurring.

11) Request a evaluation if NRC region III has enough personnel and resources.

12) Stay shutdown or remain shutdown until all procedures are fully updated and corrected, all technical and maintenances backlogs are updated and corrected, all training completed, all reports and safety processes fully completed and implemented.

13) Request a independent outside investigation over the insufficient process outcome of the 2008-2009 Palisades security falsification, investigation, safety survey local and fleet wide training and safety surveys. Based on the DC root cause it appears the safety culture for many years has been grossly defective and ineffective, along with the ROP... with then all these processes failing to discover the true depth of Entergy's safety cultural problems and they lied about these processes fixing Entergy. It sounds like this is a generic problem to me. We are broadly are worried about in 2009 over the Palisades security falsification, in the outcome of the violations, whether all the reports and employee cultural surveys with the assortment of NRC and Entergy processes over these very serious violation ever had any meaning at all. According to the Palisades Fukushima Emergency Power System DC short and plant trip, the most recent root cause Entergy admits there is deep and widespread safety cultural problems at the Palisades plant. I feel Palisades safety culture was in the pits in 2009 and before... and the cultural safety survey was a grand Entergy and NRC falsification. The NRC Alternate Dispute Resolution secession over this, the Confirmatory Order, the Entergyinvestigative reports and safety cultural survey, the willing acceptance of this insanity by the NRC and Entergy created the inaccurate falsified impression to the outsiders that Entergy had discovered all the cultural safety problems and corrected them. Nothing could be farther from the truth, all these corporate and agency processes covered up and deepened, took the public's eyes off fixing Entergy... where Entergy now is in much worst condition than they were then. I request independent outside investigation on this dangerous agency corruption before Palisades start-up.

 ...And all of Entergy’s and the NRC’s promises to the community post red finding and in community meetings has been found to be meaningless promises in the light of the  Safety Injection Refueling Water tank leak. All of the ROP and NRC recent meeting about the troubles with the Palisades plant has been a intentional a scam to deceive the public. The intent of this activity by both the NRC and Entergy has been to weaken the nuclear industry as a national security energy-electricity resource.  

14) I request that President Obama fire Chairman Jazcko and the other Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse Commissioners! Oops, this has been completed.


 Sincerely,



Monday, June 18, 2012

The Department of the Navy Response To My NCIS Tip


 
See, a nuclear submarine saboteur is mocking the investigation of the Navy by starting another fire with a delayed ignition source.
Shipyard reports another fire near USS Miami

By Joey Cresta
jcresta@seacoastonline.com
June 18, 2012 12:59 PM
KITTERY, Maine — Another fire broke out in the vicinity of the USS Miami nuclear submarine on Saturday, less than a month after a fire inside the sub caused extensive damage, according to Portsmouth Naval Shipyard public affairs.
According to a statement released by public affairs on Monday, a small fire broke out at around 7:13 p.m. on Saturday in Dry Dock 2 at the shipyard, where the USS Miami is located.
The small fire was outside of the ship and a shipyard employee extinguished the flames with a fire extinguisher by the time the fire department arrived, according to public relations.
The ship’s nuclear reactor was never in danger and no radioactive material was involved, public relations reported.
The cause is under investigation. No one was injured.

...Update: So I got it right before it came out by the Navy, the bomb had to be placed in at a strategic time and space so the fire could pick up speed on its own without detection.

I wonder what the sound silencing new technique was they were going to apply on this boat in this availability...was it a highly flammable sprayed on foam to the inside hull or other areas?


There is just about no doubt this is intention intelligent foreign terrorism.

It is at least sailor or shipyard worker sabotage.
Navy Times

"The May 23 fire that gutted the fore end of the attack submarine Miami started in a vacuum cleaner used by drydock workers to clean their worksites and stored in an unoccupied space, the Navy said Wednesday."

 Submitted June 5, 2012

Department of the Navy Core Values Charter
As in our past, we are dedicated to the Core Values of Honor, Courage, and Commitment to build the foundation of trust and leadership upon which our strength is based and victory is achieved. These principles on which the U.S. Navy and the U.S. Marine Corps were founded continue to guide us today. Every member of the Naval Service – active, reserve, and civilian, must understand and live by our Core Values. For more than two hundred years, members of the Naval Service have stood ready to protect our nation and our freedom. We are ready today to carry out any mission, deter conflict around the globe, and if called upon to fight, be victorious. We will be faithful to our Core Values of Honor, Courage, and Commitment as our abiding duty and privilege.
“HONOR”
I am accountable for my professional and personal behavior. I will be mindful of the privilege I have to serve my fellow Americans. I will:
Abide by an uncompromising code of integrity, taking full responsibility for my actions and keeping my word.

Conduct myself in the highest ethical manner in relationships with seniors, peers and subordinates.

Be honest and truthful in my dealings within and outside the Department of the Navy.

Make honest recommendations to my seniors and peers and seek honest recommendations from junior personnel.

Encourage new ideas and deliver bad news forthrightly.

Fulfill my legal and ethical responsibilities in my public and personal life.

“COURAGE”
Courage is the value that gives me the moral and mental strength to do what is right, with confidence and resolution, even in the face of temptation or adversity. I will:

Have the courage to meet the demands of my profession.

Make decisions and act in the best interest of the Department of the Navy and the nation, without regard to personal consequences.

Overcome all challenges while adhering to the highest standards of personal conduct and decency.

Be loyal to my nation by ensuring the resources entrusted to me are used in an honest, careful and efficient way.
“COMMITMENT”
The day-to-day duty of every man and woman in the Department of the Navy is to join together as a team to improve the quality of our work, our people and ourselves. I will:

Foster respect up and down the chain of command.

Care for the personal and spiritual well-being of my people.

Show respect toward all people without regard to race, religion or gender.
Always strive for positive change and personal improvement.

Exhibit the highest degree of moral character, professional excellence, quality, and competence in all that I do.
Pingree tours fire-damaged submarine in Maine
Associated Press
June 04, 2012 6:38 PM
"Workers began an assessment and cleanup last week, and Pingree became the first member of Congress to get a look inside when she toured the sub Monday, observing the fire-damaged control room as well as the nuclear propulsion area in the rear of the sub, which was not affected by the fire."
 

Kittery Rep Chellie Pingree, a member of the House Armed Services Committee, climbed down inside the U.S.S. Miami today, observing the damage caused by last month's fire on the nuclear submarine.
So shoot me, I am trying to influence one of the most consequential Naval investigation in many decades.
Translated below: Maneuvering (where they operate the reactor) was out of communications with the outside for a indeterminate amount of time. The worst, finding every one dead in the nuclear spaces after 10 hours and nobody manning Maneuvering or the naval reactor. You could have had everyone asphyxiated in the nuclear spaces. Like I said, there is only one ventilation system in the sub and it serves both forward and back aft. They were minutes away, and luck, from all of the nuclear operators being dead.
I could make a case the breathing apparatus and the ships ventilation is mostly designed for at sea and underwater operation.

This was submitted last week to the NCIS tip line...

"11) The nuclear reactor might have been in more perilous times than admitted. I can't go into it, even when shutdown...this little reactor throws out a really large amount decade heat. Decay heat is what caused all the troubles in Fukushima. Who really knows how bad it was back there at the reactor controls...it was toxic smoke? There is no separation between forward and aft ventilation. How much smoke was in the reactor control room? Were the reactor operators walking around in breathing masks? We know burning debris from 9/11 is extremely toxic and it's killing people. How are sailors and off site volunteer fire department firefighter going to be medically covered with the toxic conditions of this fire?"
This is the Navy department and the shipyard calling congress women Pingree down to be their prop to send a message to Mike Mulligan and outside. They are demonstrating to the outside the nuclear side of the boat is ok....so called using congressman Pingree as a outside independent credibility prop. She is a navy vehicle to speak to the media and thus no Naval officer could be called for task for lying and being unethical. This is one of the pitfalls of strict ethical rules, everyone figures out how to talk through other's mouths. This could still be a still a huge national security operation. They know the congresswomen will be too dazzled to ask the right questions. I had to have a top secret security clearance to work in a submarine back aft in my days. You didn't need that to be a forward puke (we were all pukes...sea sickness transiting on the surface in rough weather) in the ship. The navy very rarely allows civilians back aft without the proper security classification.
Do you think this is a coincidence coming yesterday and the tip to NCIS...this is simmering on such a huge scandal and there is so much special economic interest involved. Do you rebuild a fatally damaged and obsolete submarine to save a shipyard...accommodate too many national security operations for submarines and not enough subs?

Honestly, this kind of immediate damage control from the Navy Department and the fruits of a NCIS tip indicates there is a huge conscious cover-up on going. Or it could be a terrorism investigation...when is it going to go criminal?  The navy department and the shipyard, with a host of political cronies have been telling half truths and story shaping. I'll bet you they have been telling half truths to the puppet politicians themselves, so the politicians can show their best foot forward.

And how demoralizing is this to the submarine fleet of sailors, the expense of the high turnover of sailors and lack of skills caused by the high turnover? This poor planning and critical shortage of submarines for a far as the eye can see. It is driven by our 10 years of wars and our political dysfunction with defense budgets and our national budget priories. This is going to have huge consequence to the lives and families of these sailors. It is going to terribly hobble and weaken the submarine force for a decade. It highlights how fragile the fleet is.

One thing I learned over the years, a dysfunction in one section of a system indicates a dysfunction in the whole system.

And the most vulnerable and heroic volunteer sailors always pays the terrible price with shadowy self interested big careers driving the show.

The horror of it all, Iran knew how fragile the nuclear fleet of submarines was...how breaking the weak link would damage us for a decade.