ML20136C179

Forwards M Casey Editorial, a Non Decision from NRC, from 970107 New London Day

ML20136C179
Person / Time
Site:	Millstone
Issue date:	01/07/1997
From:	Blanch P AFFILIATION NOT ASSIGNED
To:	Hannon J, Mulley G, Zwolinski J NRC (Affiliation Not Assigned), NRC OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL (OIG)
Shared Package
ML20136C110	List: ML20136C103 ML20136C112 ML20136C118 ML20136C127 ML20136C179 ML20136C183 ML20136C188 ML20136C191 ML20136C196 ML20136C234 ML20136C352 ML20136C387 ML20136C436 ML20136C488 ML20136C615 ML20136C658 ML20136C729 ML20136C908 ML20136D441 ML20136D493 ML20136E221 ML20136E311 ML20136E326 ML20136E478 ML20136E575 ML20136E600 ML20136E711 ML20136E763 ML20136E818 ML20136E838 ML20136E872 ML20136E896 ML20136E912 ML20136E922 ML20136E945 ML20136E992 ML20136F025 ML20136F057
References
NUDOCS 9703110297
Download: ML20136C179 (3)

Text

- . . _ . - - . . . - - - . - . - . . . . . - . - . _

. . .. - . - - - - .- - -..~. ~ . - -

i, From PAUL BLANCH-<PMBLANCH91x.netcom.com>

To:- WND2.WNP3 ( j az , j nh) , MD1.TWP4 (gam, wj s) , ARD1. ARP1 (dr. . .

L

' Dates: . 1/7/97 6:11pm Subjects- .NLD Editorial Another Blast from Maura L A NON DECISION FROM NRC-l Reprinted by' Permission of Maura casey - New London. Day

'>From the January 7, 1997 edition of the New London. Day Agency says it:has, in.effect, suspended NU's license: Questions

' remain about NRC's ability to be tough regulator

-The Nuclear Regulatory Commission ended 1996 by granting a' rare

. victory to l . Northeast Utilities,.the beleaguered operator of Connecticut's L nuclear, power plants l . .

l the NRC said it: partially granted petitioners' request of 16

. months ago that the agency revoke NU's license for 60 days.

,. In fact, the.NRC did no such thing. Its decision that since-NU l has shut down all of its four nuclear plants in Connecticut, l that shutdowns would serve, as a license revocation.

In other words, NU has suffered'enough, and the NRC didn't see any.need to take more action against the company.

l-- Federal law specifically permits the'public to petition the NRC l to revoke a. utility's license to operate if the company's l procedures are deemed unsafe'.

.That is why former NU senior engineer George Galatis and the nuclear-safety group, We the People,. filed their petition'16 l months ago.

L The petition stated that NU deliberately lied to the NRC and had L operated-L Millstone: Station in an unsafe manner.

l l As a consequence, the petition said, NU should have its license revoked for 60 days or until the plant operations met approved procedores, whichever came first.

But there never existed much of a chance that the NRC would j revoke the utility's license The agency has never taken that step.

9703110297 970306 PDR ORG NRRA PDR

~ .. .- - -. . . .. . _ - - ._. - . - - - .- ._ .-

t I

i -If.the NRC did revoke a utility's license, not only would all hell break loose in the commercial power industry, but the federal government might have to run the plants. )

It is hard to imagine an agency such as the NRC rocking so many

~

l boats at once. j f As an example, the NRC still hasn't ruled out the petition's allegation that the company lied to the agency. That the NRC  ;

said, will be decided later.

4 How maddening and absurd that the NRC can take weeks to decide complicated technical matters, but needs years to figure out whether or not a company fibbed.

1 the NRC decision lists the steps NU took to make its procedures j safer as a rationale for the agency to take no further action. I What the NRC does not say is this: How the company took many of  !

l those steps only AFTER Mr. Galatis hired a lawyer and threatened to go public.

The NRC decision also neglects to mention what an inspector

, general's report has verified: that the agency itself wouldn't take Mr. Galatis's concerns seriously until he spoke out publicly.

i On the surface, the petition failed. It didn't achieve it stated purpose of getting the NRC to revoke NU's license.

l But the petition did galvanize the public.

It did force out into the public arena information concerning both NU and the j NRC in the last 16 months.

i i And more will come out, especially nince the Citizen's Awareness

} Network filed a new petition in late November asking the NRC to either suspect NU's license or to prove that Connecticut's plants are run safely, and that the NRC's oversight is adequate.

The public has learned plenty, particularly with regard to how our government regulates the nuclear industry.

If knowledge is power, the public is far more powerful today than it was so many months ago.

the public should use that power to demand answers to questions regarding the NRC's lax past enforcement.

For example, the NRC has been highly critical of Northeast Utilities because its plant operators did not follow procedures

l <

l f in their' Final Safety analysis l Reports, important documents which every U.S. commercial nuclear power plant is supposed to keep updated.

But NU safety oversight employees at Millstone Unit 1 told the NRC EIGHT YEARS ago that the plant wasn't following its Final Safety

' Analysis Report.

l l Yet it took the petition,-and the resulting public furor, for the NRC to adequately regulate the plants, i

l Why?

Congress:needs to ask'that question, and others, during hearings on the NRC's performance.

only then will the public regain some faith in the agency.

l t

Paul M. Blanch i' Energy Consultant l 135 Hyde Rd.

West Hartford CT 06117 Tel: 860-236-0326 Fax: 860-232-9350 l

l l

l 4

i

.