Re: Safety Questioned at Nuclear Plant -Reply -Reply

["CLAUDE A. FLORY" <FLORYCA@GWSMTP.NU.COM>]

It's integrity.  You don't know me, so you don't have to take my word for it. 
But I am comfortable with saying that Millstone is safe to operate.  The NRC
commissioners said the same thing yesterday, at least for Unit 3.  The reason I
stake my integrity on such a bald statement is that now I know that upper
management is listening when I have a concern.  It's part of the Safety
Conscious Work Environment (SCWE).  SCWE is a not just a new buzz word; it's a
program as required by the NRC.  The Millstone problem was the catalyst for an
institutionalized and required SCWE. 

Claude Flory, SSBG
Northeast Utilities
floryca@gwsmtp.nu.com (W)
CAFlory@aol.com (H)

>>> <GACMail98@aol.com> 06/03/98 02:37am >>>
In a message dated 98-06-02 07:54:14 EDT, "Claude Flory, CHP (Health Physicist
first, utility employee second)" writes:

<< Take my word for it, Millstone is safe to run.  >>

No.  A scientist (first or last) does not ask that others "take my word for
it."  And, perhaps, Millstone is as you claim "safe," but with NU's past
breaches of trust (not Jane Fonda's, or the media's, or Godzilla's), it's
unreasonable to ask that we now accept it's word that it's rehabilitated
itself.  No more trust, this time NU will have to prove it.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Glenn A. Carlson, P.E., JD
St. Peters, MO
GACMail98@aol.com
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~