Text

G20120022/EDATS: OEDO-2012-0028 - Request Palisades Nuclear Power Plant and All Entergy Nuclear Power Plants Be Immediately Shutdown
	ML12131A487
Person / Time
Site:	Palisades
Issue date:	05/21/2012
From:	Michael Cheok; Division of Engineering
To:	Mulligan M; - No Known Affiliation
	Chawla M
Shared Package
ML12131A496	List: ML12131A487;
References
	TAC ME7830, 2.206, EDATS: OEDO-2012-0028, G20120022
	Download: ML12131A487 (8)
	v • d • e

UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20555*0001 May 21, 2012 Mr. Michael Mulligan P.O. Box 161 Hinsdale, NH 03451

Dear Mr. Mulligan:

Your letter dated January 10, 2012, addressed to Mr. William Borchardt, Executive Director for Operations, has been referred to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's (NRC) Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation pursuant to Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR),

Section 2.206. In your petition, you made the following requests:

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

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

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

3. Immediately request two addition[al] NRC inspectors to be assigned to Palisades plan, and to all the rest of the troubled Entergy nuclear plants. There seems to be a few plants of the bunch that behave themselves.

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

5. Request a emergency NRC senior official oversight panel with the aims of reforming the ROP [Reactor Oversight Process].

6. 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.

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

8. Request a evaluation if NRC Region III has enough personnel and resources.

9. Request Palisades to stay shutdown or remain shutdown until the replacement of the three service water pumps.

10. 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.

11. Request a report by the NRC on why [NRC] region III failed to stop work and demand a reactor scram of Palisades prior to the electrical short and plant trip with the DC [direct current] "emergency power system".

12. Doesn't it drive you crazy... the system doesn't force all the utilities to report all coupling failures, degradations and near misses. Request the NRC fix this problem!

13. I request that President Obama fire Chairman Jazcko and other Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse Commissioners!

M. Mulligan

- 2

14. Request a independent outside investigation over the insufficient process outcome of 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."

On January 19, 2012, the Petition Review Board (PRB) met internally to discuss the request for immediate action. The PRB denied your request for immediate action on the basis that there was no immediate safety concern to the plant, or to the health and safety of the public. Your request for the immediate action to shutdown Palisades and other Entergy Plants did not have the adequate bases. You have cited numerous equipment failures and made statements of falsification of records and you also find the ROP process to be inadequate. However, you did not provide any additional information for the NRC to consider. The NRC staff is aware of the information you have provided in the petition and these issues/events are being reviewed in other NRC processes. You were informed on January 24,2012, of the PRB's decision to deny your request for immediate action.

On January 24,2012, the petition manager contacted you to discuss the 10 CFR 2.206 process and to offer you an opportunity to address the PRB by phone or in person. You requested to address the PRB by phone prior to its internal meeting to make the initial recommendation to accept or reject the petition for review.

On January 31,2012, you addressed the PRB via teleconference. However, during this conference, you did not provide any additional information regarding this petition. The official transcript of the proceedings (edited for accuracy) of this conference is publicly available in ADAMS (Accession No. ML120370395).

On February 22, 2012, the PRB met internally to discuss the supplemental information provided by you after the teleconference. The PRB made the initial recommendation that the petition did not meet the criteria for review because you did not provide sufficient facts to warrant further inquiry. You have made references to inspection reports to demonstrate that there is some recurring problem. However, you did not provide any additional facts beyond what the staff has already inspected and documented in those inspection reports. In addition, some of the items in this request were reviewed by NRC in the 2.206 process for a previous petition filed by you on February 22,2011, (G2011 0127 closed on April 20, 2011, ADAMS Accession No. ML111010590).

On March 12, 2012, you were informed of the PRB's initial recommendation not to accept your petition for review for the reasons stated in the enclosed table. You were also given the second opportunity to address the PRB on March 19,2012, you informed the petition manager via e mail regarding your acceptance of this opportunity to address the PRB.

On March 19,2012, you addressed the PRB by teleconference to discuss the PRB's initial recommendation. The PRB discussed the information you provided on the teleconference on March 19,2012, and arrived at the consensus that you did not provide any additional information to support this petition. The PRB's final determination is the same as the initial recommendation for the reasons provided in the enclosed table.

M. Mulligan

-3 The PRB's final determination is to reject your petition for review under the 10 CFR 2.206 process because it does not meet the criteria for review. The enclosed table provides the details for rejecting this petition. There are some issues which are outside the scope of 10 CFR 2.206 process, and the other issues under the petition process have already been the subject of NRC review, and resolution has been achieved in accordance with NRC MD 8.11. Review Process for 10 CFR 2.206 petitions.

Sincerely, Michael Cheok, Deputy Director Division of Engineering Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Docket No. 50-255

Enclosure:

As stated cc w/encl: Distribution via Listserv

Table summarizing each issue and recommendation Specific Issue Raised Does this element meet the criteria for reviewing petitions under 10 CFR 2.206?

I Recommendation Immediate shutdown of Palisades and other Entergy nuclear power plants I No In accordance with Management Directive (MD) 8.11, this request does not meet the criteria for review because the petitioner did not provide adequate basis and sufficient facts to warrant further inquiry and therefore, this request is not accept~(j f()r revi~\\I\\I' pursuant to 10 CFR 2.206.

Replacement of top Palisades I No The petitioner's supporting facts are not sufficient to Management staff warrant further inquiry and therefore, this request should not be accepted for review, pursuant to 10 CFR 2.206.

In addition, this request was previously reviewed by NRC in the 2.206 process for a previous petition filed by the petitioner (G2011 0127), which meets criteria for rejecting 2.206 petitions in accordance with MD 8.11.

Replacement of Entergy corporate nuclear staff.

I No The petitioner's supporting facts are not sufficient to warrant further inquiry and therefore, this request should not be accepted for review, pursuant to 10 CFR 2.206.