|
|
|
Mismanaging the News
|
Business New Haven
9/22/1997
By: BNH
|
For the first time since the Sheff v. O'Neill court decision, two of Connecticut's top elected officials have found something to agree on.
In recent days both Gov. John G. Rowland and Attorney General Richard Blumenthal have taken Northeast Utilities to task for its management of the now-closed Connecticut Yankee nuclear plant in Haddam.
The governor asserted that NU's management showed a “reckless attitude toward the environment.” For his part, Blumenthal, is now considering a criminal investigation. The governor had previously supported the utility even in the face of enforcement actions by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), while the attorney general had been more closely identified with electricity deregulation than with safety, generally speaking.
The change of heart follows in the wake of a much-publicized report by state consultant James K. Joosten claiming that NU was operating an “unanalyzed, undocumented radiological waste dump site” at the plant.
Revelations associated with NU's nuclear operations come as little or no surprise, however, to anyone. The NRC recently fined the company $650,000 for a wide variety of safety irregularities and deficiencies at the Haddam plant. It suspended NU's license to operate its Millstone plants until they could be improved and safety concerns properly addressed. The decision by NU to decommission the 30-year-old plant was made as part of a review of its nuclear operations by Bruce Kenyon, an executive brought in by the utility to head up and turn around the company's nuclear operations.
In response to the consultants' report, the utility maintained that it has not covered up any information. In spite of its shoddy public information record, the utility's response has some credibility. Its nuclear operations have come under intense scrutiny recently; it has brought in a fresh team of executives, some on loan from other companies, to right matters; the NRC has conducted several reviews; and the company has battled with company whistle blowers for several years. That all of these people were kept from information that made it into the consultants' report strikes us as improbable.
The rhetoric surrounding the nuclear plants is heating up as the election season begins. And some, it appears, would like to exploit it to a point of meltdown.
The New Haven Register is one example. On Wednesday, September 17, the paper grossly misrepresented Blumenthal's comment, “It was a nuclear management nightmare,” to read instead, “NUCLEAR NIGHTMARE.” The heading floated above a full page-width banner headline that read “NU accused of hiding leaks.” That language, together with a map of the plant's location showing its proximity to New Haven, might have caused some concerned readers to load up the family station wagon and flee the coming radiation.
This inflammatory and inaccurate characterization was unacceptable even for the broadsheet-shaped tabloid. The Hartford Courant, by contrast, featured the same basic set of facts with a front-page headline that read, “State argues NU customers deserve refund.”
What the story really is about is how much should it cost to clean up the plants, and how did mismanagement contribute to the problems. The outcome - while important is not about safety but the economic viability of NU. We are deeply concerned about Connecticut's environment, but we are also concerned about public reaction to sensationalistic rhetoric. That reaction may be the first step in forcing NU into bankruptcy, a step that some would like to see on principle alone, and which others believe may be necessary to deregulate electricity - but which also may prove extremely perilous for the economy of the state.
|
Go FirstGo PreviousGo
NextGo LastGo
to Index
|
|
