Holtec and the Whistleblower
To the editor:
Christine Legere’s report on the Holtec whistleblower letter [“Holtec Confirms Pilgrim Worker Was Contaminated,” June 20, front page] highlights the fact that the company has no concern for its workers or the public. Holtec admits that a worker was contaminated by airborne radionuclides but puts its own negligent spin on the story, while the allegations point to ongoing exposure of workers, and thus of the public, from radioactive wastewater being evaporated.
The first whistleblower letter received last August said Holtec was using immersion heaters in the contaminated water to raise the temperature of the ambient air for “worker comfort” — a ruse to discharge airborne effluent because the dumping permit was tentatively denied.
Holtec promotes an environment of dishonesty and retaliation, which bodes poorly for worker and public health and safety. The elimination of work-area radiation monitoring is a clear example.
Meanwhile, rather than follow its mandate to protect the public and environment, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission routinely defers to the industry. NRC spokesman Neil Sheehan says there’s no evidence of workers being “overexposed” based on “available information” and that the NRC will not be conducting an investigation other than routine reviews.
This is nonsense. The NRC is allowing Holtec to control the narrative. The whistleblower letter suggests that workers involved will be “discharged prior to the incident being reviewed by either auditors or regulators.” NRC oversight of Holtec takes “the fox guarding the henhouse” to a new level.
The whistleblower is risking his or her livelihood to protect colleagues. These allegations are serious. Because the NRC is sweeping the issue under the rug and the Mass. Dept. of Public Health has done nothing in response, we need an independent investigation. The state should step up to protect Massachusetts workers and the public from Holtec’s mendacity.
Diane Turco
Harwich
The writer is director of the advocacy group Cape Downwinders.
Not Guesswork
To the editor:
Re “In Wellfleet, Mooring Means Your Rudder’s in the Mud” [June 27, page A7]:
Your article provides an accurate report on the poor condition of the harbor’s mooring field, with one important exception. I did not “guess” that the capacity of the mooring field when properly dredged would be 350 boats.
Dredging the mooring field requires state and federal government approval as well as strict oversight. It is a matter of public record that both governments have accepted that the mooring field can accommodate as many as 350 boats when fully dredged. The permits that have been secured to allow dredging there have been based on that number. The grants awarded to the town by the state for dredging the mooring field have also been based on that number.
The 350-boat capacity is important. One of the significant factors that grant funding is based on is the mooring field size and boat capacity. Also, the permit fees that would be generated by that number of moorings would be important additional revenue for the marina and town.
Joe Aberdale
Wellfleet
The writer is chair of the Wellfleet Dredging Task Force and of the Wellfleet Marina Advisory Committee.
*****
Letters to the Editor
The Provincetown Independent welcomes letters from readers on all subjects. They must be signed with the writer’s name, home address, and telephone number (for verification). Letters will be published only if they have been sent exclusively to the Independent. They should be no more than 300 words and may be edited for clarity, accuracy, conciseness, and good taste. Longer pieces (up to 600 words) may be submitted for consideration as op-ed commentary. Send letters to [email protected] or by mail to P.O. Box 1034, Provincetown, MA 02657. The deadline for letters is Monday at noon for each week’s edition.
