ML20115C241

Submits Hartford Courant Editorial for 960623

ML20115C241
Person / Time
Site:	Millstone
Issue date:	06/23/1996
From:	Blanch P AFFILIATION NOT ASSIGNED
To:	Stryker W, Zwolinsky J NRC
Shared Package
ML20115C074	List: ML20115C241
References
NUDOCS 9607110240
Download: ML20115C241 (1)

Text

._ . ___ _ _ _ _. _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

P o IN From: <VMBLANCH@aol.com>

To: WND2.WNP3(jnhjaz),TWD1.TWP4(wjs,1jn1),WND1.WNP2(d... 1 Date: . 6/23/961:19pm

Subject:

. SUNDAY COURANT EDITORIAL 6/23/96 NU: drip- drip, drip _

]

Hartford Courant Editorial June 23.1996 Embattled Northeast Utilities has something in common with the Clinton White House: Both are under siege, with unflattering stories about them coming out with dismaying ,

regularity.

And neither has been especially adept at containing the damage. l These are the latest droplets in the water torture afflicting NU: x in a critical report, the ,

Nuclear Regulatory Commission took note of the slow erosion of part of the concrete j foundation beneath the Millstone 3 nuclear power station and expressed concem about its long-term safety implications. The head of the NRC inspection team at Mdistone said the ,

erosion "is not currently a safety issue," but "it's got to be solved sooner or later." ,

The NRC report also said that in earlier evaluations of the problem, NU used inaccurate data to determine whether the weakened concrete could support the weight of the reactor.  !

NU claims this is an old story blown out of proportion. The company contends that despite the

unprecedented erosion - apparently caused by a chemical reaction where two different types  ;

of concrete meet - there is a huge margin of , safety, and that the problem should not affect the utility's ability to bring the plant back on-line, perhaps later this summer. All three Millstone l nuclear plants are shut down after having been put on the NRC's safety watch list.

F Perhaps the erosion in Millstone 3's foundation can be fixed and will not prevent the plant's start-up. But it pays to be skeptical, considering the company's record of cutting comers on

! regulations and harassing employees who raise safety concems. x On Thursday, NU and George Galatis, an employee who blew the whistle on unsafe practices at the nuclear complex

at Waterford, announced they reached an " amicable settlement" under which Mr. Galatis left

!' the company. As usual in such cases, the details of the agreement were not released.

. This whistleblower's complaint about procedures for handling spent fuel rods at Millstone I is p credited with forcing regulators to look deeper into the company's operational problems. His

(- story made the cover of Time magazine.

Mr. Galatis' departure, no matter how " amicable," reminds people of NU's sorry treatment of L employees who go public with safety concems.

i Paul Blanch, an engineer and whistleblower who left the company in 1993 with a settlement,  ;

said, "It's a travesty to the industry that everyone who has safety issues and brings them forth l eventually is banned or bought out by the industry."

i He calls it " ethic cleansing - anyone with ethics seems to be removed from the industry."

i That's too extreme. But Northeast Utilities has done its share of cleansing of employees who

raise safety issues. The_ company has even been fined for its treatment of whistleblowers.

L One lesson that NU must leam from its spate of troubles is to listen to, not go to war against, employees who have such concems.

?607110240 960709 O PDR ORO NRRA PDR

. . . -- . . . .