ML100320555

G20100053/EDATS: OEDO-2010-0050 - Michael Mulligan E-mail 2.206 - Palisades Nuclear Power Plant

ML100320555
Person / Time
Site:	Palisades
Issue date:	01/28/2010
From:	Mulligan M - No Known Affiliation
To:	NRC/EDO
References
2.206, EDATS: OEDO-2010-0050, G20100053, OEDO-2010-0050
Download: ML100320555 (11)

Text

EDO Principal Correspondence Control FROM:

DUE: 03/01/10 Michael Mulligan Hinsdale, New Hampshire EDO CONTROL: G20100053 DOC DT: 01/28/10 FINAL REPLY:

NRC Allegation FOR SIGNATURE OF :

GRN CRC NO:

Leeds, NRR DESC:

ROUTING:

2.206 - Palisades Nuclear Power Plant (EDATS: OEDO-2010-0050)

DATE: 01/29/10 Borchardt Virgilio Mallett Ash Mamish Burns/Rothschild Satorius, RIII

Burns, OGC Mensah, NRR

Marco, OGC

Baggett, OEDO ASSIGNED TO:

NRR CONTACT:

Leeds SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS OR REMARKS:

~r~&Je: ~O-LXD)

EDATS Number: OEDO-2010-0050 Source: OEDO Assigned To: NRR Other Assignees:

Subject:

2.206 - Palisades Nuclear Power Plant

==

Description:==

CC Routing: RegionlII; OGC; Tonya.Mensah@nrc.gov; Catherine.Marco@nrc.gov ADAMS Accession Numbers -

Incoming: NONE OEDO Due Date: 3/1/2010 SECY Due Date: NONE Response/Package: NONE 10 rI nfomaio Cross Reference Number: G20100053 Related Task:

File Routing: EDATS Staff Initiated: NO Recurring Item: NO Agency Lesson Learned: NO OEDO Monthly Report Item: NO Ibrces Infomaio Action Type: 2.206 Review Signature Level: NRR Approval Level: No Approval Required OEDO Concurrence: NO OCM Concurrence: NO OCA Concurrence: NO Special Instructions:

Priority: Medium Sensitivity: None Urgency: NO Iioumn Infomaio Originator Name: Michael Mulligan Date of Incoming: 1/28/2010 Originating Organization: Citizens Document Received by OEDO Date: 1/29/2010 Addressee: NRC Allegation Date Response Requested by Originator: 3/1/2010 Incoming Task Received: 2.206 Page 1 of I

Jaegers, Cathy From:

Michael Mulligan [steamshovel2002@yahoo.com]

Sent:

Thursday, January 28, 2010 12:48 PM To:

NRC Allegation Cc:

Kim, James

Subject:

Re: 2.206 on the Palisades nuclear power plant Sorry this supersedes the first one.

Dear Sir,

I request a 2.206 on the Palisades nuclear power plant...indeed the NRC as a whole.

Thanks, Mike To whom it may concern:

h ttp.//en. wikipedia. org/wiki/Ca tch -22

'Catch 22'..A book written by Joseph Heller

'At one point, victims ofharassment by militarypolice (MPs) quote the MPs as having explained one of Catch-22's provisions: Catch -22 states that agents enforcing Catch -22 need not prove that Catch-22 actually contains whatever provision the accused violator is accused of violating. An old woman explains: Catch-22 says they have a right to do anything we can't stop them from doing."

Base on current events at Vermont Yankee, there is suspicion that Entergy participated in Vermont Yankee on a plan of widespread deception and falsification over relicensing and other issues at their Vermont Yankee...on the state and federal level, and definitely they falsified conditions to the community. This is happening throughout the Entergy fleet of nuclear plants.

http://ww"w.rutlandherald.com/article/20100128/NEWS02/1280339/1003/NEWS02 PSB sees Entergy pattern of deception By Susan Smallheer STAFF REPORT - Published: January 28, 2010 MONTPELIER - The Vermont Public Service Board said Wednesday Entergy Nuclear may have provided false information to state utility regulators and the Legislature "for an extended period of time," and said the issue is "broader" than just buried radioactive pipes at Vermont Yankee.

EDO -- G20100053

James Volz, chairman of the Public Service Board, said it appeared Entergy had given not just false sworn testimony to the board, but also to the Public Service Department, to the state's contractor, Nuclear Safety Associates, the state's Public Oversight Panel, the Legislature and the public.

The controversy over radioactive leaks and Entergy's misinformation erupted almost three weeks ago, when Entergy announced that a groundwater monitoring well had tested positive for tritium, a radioactive isotope. The company quickly launched an investigation to find the source of the radioactivity. The probable source: buried pipes that the company said last year didn't exist. Compounding the problem, Volz said, is that Entergy "did nothing to correct the record."....

It is noted that the 20 year Palisades nuclear relicensing was completed January 18, 2007. The debacle over the swelling and potential reactivity accident at Palisade's old nuclear fuel assemblies and racks began on September 20, 2007.... the fuel pool. How could Palisades and the NRC get through relicensing without addressing the swollen fuel racks, identify the problem and correct it immediately before the completion of relicensing? I suspect there is significant NRC, Entergy and Palisades fraud and falsification associated with the relicensing of this nuclear plant.

PALISADES NUCLEAR PLANT NRC INSPECTION REPORT 05000255/2009008; PRELIMINARY WHITE FINDING In 1988, the licensee first identified that some rack locations were swelling when they were unable to load a fuel bundle into a storage location. The licensee first identified a stuck bundle in 1991 and there are now 11 fuel bundles that are stuck in their current location and 3 more locations that have swollen walls. However, in 1994, the licensee and NUS evaluated the condition and concluded gas generated from irradiation caused the swelling. This conclusion has not been confirmed; therefore, there may be another cause of the rack swelling. The licensee could not show that the effects of the swelling on neutron absorber degradation had ever been evaluated nor that the effects of gas pockets on the criticality analysis had been considered. Until July of 2008, the licensee had not performed testing on the SFP neutron absorption capability. In response to the inspector's concerns, the licensee accelerated testing committed for license extension to determine the neutron absorption capability of the SFP racks. In July of 2008, the testing revealed that the neutron absorber in the SFP racks had deteriorated and the SFP no longer met the TS requirements for Keff in Region I of the SFP. The licensee performed a criticality assessment of the pool and concluded that with 50 percent depletion of the neutron absorber, the pool remained with a Keff of less than 1.00 and with a Keff of less than 0.95 with 150 ppm boron. The licensee committed to additional controls to ensure the SFP remained sub-critical. On September 19, 2008, the NRC issued confirmatory action letter (CAL) RIII-08-003 to Palisades to confirm these commitments. On February 6, 2009, the NRC approved a license amendment for the SFP and the licensee established compliance with the TS. The CAL was closed on February 20, 200 2

1)

Indication are this was outed by a disgruntled palisades plant employee and whistleblower... not by the NRC or Entergy itself.

2)

I request an NRC investigation concerning the events around the swollen fuel racks and relicensing.... and that you allowed me to participate in the investigation.

3)

If deception and falsification at Palisades is similar to Vermont Yankee...I request a immediate shutdown of the plant and that the management team be replaced. I request that its nuclear licensed be removed from Entergy.

4)

If deception and falsification at Palisades is similar to Vermont Yankee...I request that the NRC deem Entergy as lacking the integrity to safety run a nuclear power plant and they pull the licenses of all Entergy's nuclear power plants.

5)

There are indication the NRC participated in a cover-up of defective relicensing of Palisades...they have allowed Palisade's through their inspection activities to delay and obfuscate the connections of the relicensing and the swelling of the fuel racks. The NRC should have immediately suspected relicensing fraud and falsification upon Sept 2007.. they should have identified the employees and Entergy as falsified and deceivers, then prosecuted them to the full extent of the law. We wouldn't be here with the issues of Vermont Yankee if the NRC did their job.

6)

I am sorry to say there are widespread suspicions the relicensing of nuclear plants across the nation are collectively riddled with fraud, falsification and deception.

Thanks, Michael Mulligan Hinsdale, NH PO Box 161.

16033368320 e-mail: steamshovel@yahoo.com From: Michael Mulligan <steamshovel2002@yahoo.com>

To: allegation@nrc.gov Cc: "Kim, James" <James.Kim@nrc.gov>

Sent: Thu, January 28, 2010 12:24:33 PM

Subject:

2.206 on the Palisades nuclear power plant

Dear Sir,

I request a 2.206 on the Palisades nuclear power plant.. indeed the NRC as a whole.

Thanks, Mike To whom it may concern:

3

Base on current events at Vermont Yankee, there is suspicion that Entergy participated in Vermont Yankee on a plan of widespread deception and falsification over relicensing and other issues at their Vermont Yankee...on the state and federal level, and definitely they falsified conditions to the community. This is happening throughout the Entergy fleet of nuclear plants.

http://www.rutlandherald.com/article/20100128/NEWS02/1280339/1003/NEWS02 PSB sees Entergy pattern of deception By Susan Smallheer STAFF REPORT - Published: January 28, 2010 MONTPELIER - The Vermont Public Service Board said Wednesday Entergy Nuclear may have provided false information to state utility regulators and the Legislature "for an extended period of time," and said the issue is "broader" than just buried radioactive pipes at Vermont Yankee.

James Volz, chairman of the Public Service Board, said it appeared Entergy had given not just false sworn testimony to the board, but also to the Public Service Department, to the state's contractor, Nuclear Safety Associates, the state's Public Oversight Panel, the Legislature and the public.

The controversy over radioactive leaks and Entergy's misinformation erupted almost three weeks ago, when Entergy announced that a groundwater monitoring well had tested positive for tritium, a radioactive isotope. The company quickly launched an investigation to find the source of the radioactivity. The probable source: buried pipes that the company said last year didn't exist. Compounding the problem, Volz said, is that Entergy "did nothing to correct the record."....

It is noted that the 20 year Palisades nuclear relicensing was completed January 18, 2007. The debacle over the swelling and potential reactivity accident at Palisade's old nuclear fuel assemblies and racks began on September 20, 2007.... the fuel pool. How could Palisades and the NRC get through relicensing without addressing the swollen fuel racks, identify the problem and correct it immediately before the completion of relicensing? I suspect there is significant NRC, Entergy and Palisades fraud and falsification associated with the relicensing of this nuclear plant.

PALISADES NUCLEAR PLANT NRC INSPECTION REPORT 05000255/2009008; PRELIMINARY WHITE FINDING In 1988, the licensee first identified that some rack locations were swelling when they were unable to load a fuel bundle into a storage location. The licensee first identified a stuck bundle in 1991 and there are now 11 fuel bundles that are stuck in their current location and 3 more locations that have swollen walls. However, in 1994, the licensee and NUS evaluated the condition and concluded gas generated from irradiation caused the 4

swelling. This conclusion has not been confirmed; therefore, there may be another cause of the rack swelling. The licensee could not show that the effects of the swelling on neutron absorber degradation had ever been evaluated nor that the effects of gas pockets on the criticality analysis had been considered. Until July of 2008, the licensee had not performed testing on the SFP neutron absorption capability. In response to the inspector's concerns, the licensee accelerated testing committed for license extension to determine the neutron absorption capability of the SFP racks. In July of 2008, the testing revealed that the neutron absorber in the SFP racks had deteriorated and the SFP no longer met the TS requirements for Keff in Region I of the SFP. The licensee performed a criticality assessment of the pool and concluded that with 50 percent depletion of the neutron absorber, the pool remained with a Keff of less than 1.00 and with a Keff of less than 0.95 with 150 ppm boron. The licensee committed to additional controls to ensure the SFP remained sub-critical. On September 19, 2008, the NRC issued confirmatory action letter (CAL) RIII-08-003 to Palisades to confirm these commitments. On February 6, 2009, the NRC approved a license amendment for the SFP and the licensee established compliance with the TS. The CAL was closed on February 20, 200

1) Indication are this was outed by a disgruntled palisades plant employee and whistleblower... not by the NRC or Entergy itself.

2) I request an NRC investigation concerning the events around the swollen fuel racks and relicensing.... and that you allowed me to participate in the investigation.

3) If deception and falsification at Palisades is similar to Vermont Yankee...I request a immediate shutdown of the plant and that the management team be replaced. I request that its nuclear licensed be removed from Entergy.

4) If deception and falsification at Palisades is similar to Vermont Yankee...I request that the NRC deem Entergy as lacking the integrity to safety run a nuclear power plant and they pull the licenses of all Entergy's nuclear power plants.

5) There are indication the NRC participated in a cover-up of defective relicensing of Palisades...they have allowed Palisade's through their inspection activities to delay and obfuscate the connections of the relicensing and the swelling of the fuel racks. The NRC should have immediately suspected relicensing fraud and falsification upon Sept 2007...they should have identified the employees and Entergy as falsified and deceivers, then prosecuted them to the full extent of the law. We wouldn't be here with the issues of Vermont Yankee if the NRC did their job.

16)

I am sorry to say there are widespread suspicions the relicensing of nuclear plants across the nation are collectively riddled with fraud, falsification and deception.

Thanks, Michael Mulligan Hinsdale, NH PO Box 161.

16033368320 e-mail: steamshovel@yahoo.com 5

From: Michael Mulligan <steamshovel2002@yahoo.com>

To: allegation@nrc.gov Cc: "Kim, James" <James.Kim@nrc.gov>

Sent: Thu, January 28, 2010 12:24:33 PM

Subject:

2.206 on the Palisades nuclear power plant

Dear Sir,

I request a 2.206 on the Palisades nuclear power plant...indeed the NRC as a whole.

Thanks, Mike To whom it may concern:

Base on current events at Vermont Yankee, there is suspicion that Entergy participated in Vermont Yankee on a plan of widespread deception and falsification over relicensing and other issues at their Vermont Yankee...on the state and federal level, and definitely they falsified conditions to the community. This is happening throughout the Entergy fleet of nuclear plants.

http://www.rutlandherald.com/article/20100128/NEWS02/1280339/1003/NEWS02 PSB sees Entergy pattern of deception By Susan Smallheer STAFF REPORT - Published: January 28, 2010 MONTPELIER - The Vermont Public Service Board said Wednesday Entergy Nuclear may have provided false information to state utility regulators and the Legislature "for an extended period of time," and said the issue is "broader" than just buried radioactive pipes at Vermont Yankee.

James Volz, chairman of the Public Service Board, said it appeared Entergy had given not just false sworn testimony to the board, but also to the Public Service Department, to the state's contractor, Nuclear Safety Associates, the state's Public Oversight Panel, the Legislature and the public.

The controversy over radioactive leaks and Entergy's misinformation erupted almost three weeks ago, when Entergy announced that a groundwater monitoring well had tested positive for tritium, a radioactive isotope. The company quickly launched an investigation to find the source of the radioactivity. The probable source: buried pipes that the company said last year didn't exist. Compounding the problem, Volz said, is that Entergy "did nothing to correct the record."....

It is noted that the 20 year Palisades nuclear relicensing was completed January 18, 2007. The debacle over the swelling and potential reactivity accident at Palisade's old nuclear fuel 6

assemblies and racks began on September 20, 2007.... the fuel pool. How could Palisades and the NRC get through relicensing without addressing the swollen fuel racks, identify the problem and correct it immediatelybefore the completion of relicensing? I suspect there is significant NRC, Entergy and Palisades fraud and falsification associated with the relicensing of this nuclear plant.

PALISADES NUCLEAR PLANT NRC INSPECTION REPORT 05000255/2009008; PRELIMINARY WHITE FINDING In 1988, the licensee first identified that some rack locations were swelling when they were unable to load a fuel bundle into a storage location. The licensee first identified a stuck bundle in 1991 and there are now 11 fuel bundles that are stuck in their current location and 3 more locations that have swollen walls. However, in 1994, the licensee and NUS evaluated the condition and concluded gas generated from irradiation caused the swelling. This conclusion has not been confirmed; therefore, there may be another cause of the rack swelling. The licensee could not show that the effects of the swelling on neutron absorber degradation had ever been evaluated nor that the effects of gas pockets on the criticality analysis had been considered. Until July of 2008, the licensee had not performed testing on the SFP neutron absorption capability. In response to the inspector's concerns, the licensee accelerated testing committed for license extension to determine the neutron absorption capability of the SFP racks. In July of 2008, the testing revealed that the neutron absorber in the SFP racks had deteriorated and the SFP no longer met the TS requirements for Keff in Region I of the SFP. The licensee performed a criticality assessment of the pool and concluded that with 50 percent depletion of the neutron absorber, the pool remained with a Keff of less than 1.00 and with a Keff of less than 0.95 with 150 ppm boron. The licensee committed to additional controls to ensure the SFP remained sub-critical. On September 19, 2008, the NRC issued confirmatory action letter (CAL) RIII-08-003 to Palisades to confirm these commitments. On February 6, 2009, the NRC approved a license amendment for the SFP and the licensee established compliance with the TS. The CAL was closed on February 20, 200

1) Indication are this was outed by a disgruntled palisades plant employee and whistleblower... not by the NRC or Entergy itself.

2) I request an NRC investigation concerning the events around the swollen fuel racks and relicensing.... and that you allowed me to participate in the investigation.

3) If deception and falsification at Palisades is similar to Vermont Yankee...I request a immediate shutdown of the plant and that the management team be replaced. I request that its nuclear licensed be removed from Entergy.

4) If deception and falsification at Palisades is similar to Vermont Yankee...1 request that the NRC deem Entergy as lacking the integrity to safety run a nuclear power plant and they pull the licenses of all Entergy's nuclear power plants.

5) There are indication the NRC participated in a cover-up of defective relicensing of Palisades...they have allowed Palisade's through their inspection activities to delay and obfuscate the connections of the relicensing and the swelling of the fuel racks. The NRC should have immediately suspected relicensing fraud and falsification upon Sept 2007...they should have identified the employees and Entergy as falsified and deceivers, then prosecuted them to the full extent of the law. We wouldn't be here with the issues of Vermont Yankee if the NRC did their job.

7

6)

I am sorry to say there are widespread suspicions the relicensing of nuclear plants across the nation are collectively riddled with fraud, falsification and deception.

Thanks, Michael Mulligan Hinsdale, NH PO Box 161.

16033368320 e-mail: steamshovel@yahoo.com 8

Received: from mail2.nrc.gov (148.184.176.43) by TWMS01.nrc.gov (148.184.200.145) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 8.1.393.1; Thu, 28 Jan 2010 12:47:47 -0500 X-Ironport-ID: mail2 X-SBRS: 4.5 X-MID: 12252455 X-ironPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result:

AjMDAOZcYUtCxGTdkWdsb2JhbABGgS2BRIwEggWIf4ELAQEBAQkLCgcTA645K4FFK4UCiE UBBAQBgimBNVkE X-lronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.49,361,1262581200";

d="scan'208,217";a="12252455" Received: from web58807. mail.re1.yahoo.com ([66.196.100.221]) by mail2.nrc.gov with SMTP; 28 Jan 2010 12:47:46 -0500 Received: (qmail 36915 invoked by uid 60001); 28 Jan 2010 17:47:45 -0000 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=yahoo.com; s=sl024; t=1264700865; bh=9m5c+hmIlsKSV2+5hFmRbelf+yl3dtBYsxTAwb6KmRU=; h=Message-ID:X-YMaiI-OSG: Received:X-Mailer: Date: From:

Subject:

To: Cc: MIME-Version: Content-Type; b=N72GuQd3LRyVU M6GO 11 F/Ba2B+vffqfRnuT6ujmso3rzDC75SSbLvdUd/v7nuzl+VHyYKIaSi Kq811Knw2SVM6Uj59ExViPtpagArKw/a33cg6m6X+5CqyMh7TML7PxcFPStZyM3QP4FHH/aOT azcEM6qhqHyOyl K4okA95FfOE=

DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-shal; q=dns; c=nofws; s=sl024; d=yahoo.com; h=Message-I D:X-YMaiI-OSG: Received:X-Mailer: Date: From:

Subject:

To: Cc: MI ME-Version: Content-Type; b=zJQH3CoHV6oOj4TRwMFOdXS/RNSZ2JPKmdzL+HDxT7dAhxgrY3nNNGY/FIqRefO/USGcz xLlxzKyt3bvF3pnhCfMpscv60PkjdQhfl htq9kLtEYouOL8JssBC8Jg28L7Vl fAnckvFscf4+44AqH2 hThbGE 1 x324JPFhx4KIwD+U=;

Message-ID: <891074.36724.qm@web58807.mail.re 1.yahoo.com>

X-YMaiI-OSG:

71B6QP8VM1 nKY24fXpfJraVIfyAs.U_lJwnUtTRNxI6T94ifrJz2wOrbypHZb9mcWeNGZy3O0lZub N8hG42oj2D. BlIO08TeXm4zikliOCs9_qM5yw3ACsBzNZ4uYgFCUqzoiq4V1 YD8mxl L835UTef5 ZbIN2eFu3HLg 1 _8vJzl yDg3cVdqbDmQqVhqfxZsU7vb7Qq RvkGmlhnZApBV.91881nK6JThOk59 3bOWY5SzrcosqZjNxjdPirapqPOFUny3Vk7LG6CFgv5eYHGwwAxkR96Moapc8AtddpoR3ukfPT 2xm HFrKfpRvrl6hYnQgPOI 5JyIOOJbBa8ZZraVFJVDGJF4b44bq813OxZ4cGI 1 zHNZi2Ts7MyT X8Z1 GzOz3kOPrOkAvg21 b9usZndQQhuxJSI8OP.AY9QwPiEIwWQXN2.jKKvOzvFOJughRNIOV WLv8aC61 JKkUvCoYZDZA21aZjBqtvhkV92tlaFgSyU7ylCPzbPQ21jC8Baf5WbrrYcXDdMDJZjD oly4ddoXGUkbL34REyPu2FIvc9X9OmhMZr.cCpo-Received: from [24.63.202.49] by web58807.mail.re 1.yahoo.com via HTTP; Thu, 28 Jan 2010 09:47:45 PST X-Mailer: YahooMailRC/272.7 YahooMailWebService/0.8.100.260964 Date: Thu, 28 Jan 2010 09:47:45 -0800 From: Michael Mulligan <steamshovel2002@yahoo.com>

Subject:

Re: 2.206 on the Palisades nuclear power plant To: allegation@nrc.gov CC: "Kim, James" <James.Kim@nrc.gov>

MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0-343434138-1264700865=:36724" Return-Path: steamshovel2002@yahoo.com