Posted by the Asbury Park Press on 02/15/06 BY NICHOLAS CLUNN STAFF WRITER

When state officials wanted to raise questions with the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission about possible weaknesses and deficiencies at the Oyster Creek nuclear power plant, the NRC staff offered a pointed response: No.

In a separate petition to the NRC, an activist coalition against the relicensing of Oyster Creek received the same rejection from the agency's staff.

State officials and critics of the Lacey plant say they are flabbergasted by NRC rules that bar the asking of all but the most narrow of questions during hearings on proposed license renewals for nuclear power reactors.

Oyster Creek, the oldest commercial nuclear plant in the nation, wants to extend its 40-year operating license by 20 years. Without an extension, the plant will close in 2009.

"This is sort of a pole vaulter's nightmare," said Paul Gunter, a nuclear power industry watchdog with the Nuclear Information and Resource Service in Washington. "This high of a standard has been set to deter public interest intervention."

Regulators have yet to deny a license renewal request. Since 2000, the NRC has granted renewals for 39 reactors. An additional 12 are under review. And 27 more renewal applications are expected by 2012, according to an industry trade group. Those three figures taken together constitute nearly three-quarters of the nation's 103 reactors.

In their defense, regulators say their mission is to ensure that reactors run safely. Among federal agencies, they say the NRC is one of the most open; nearly all of its findings about the country's 103 commercial reactors are posted on its public Web site.

Critics of the license renewal process say NRC hearings give them the opportunity to work with regulators, but they've been challenged with finding issues the agency will consider when deciding whether to extend a plant's license.

Bradley M. Campbell, former commissioner of the state Department of Environmental Protection, who left office Jan. 17, said it was "outrageous" for the NRC staff to recommend denying the DEP's request for a public hearing on Oyster Creek. The NRC staff wants to exclude the public from talking about relicensing issues, he added.

The public hearings being sought by the DEP and the activists coalition, Stop the Renewal of Oyster Creek, would be heard before a panel of three administrative law judges. This kind of proceeding, in general, provides those affected by a possible licensing to bring a quasilegal case against the applicant.

Before the panel can hear a petition from even a state government, it is reviewed by the NRC staff. The staffers determine if the petition meets certain rules and then forward their opinion to the judges, who either grant or deny a hearing. Plant operators also can submit for consideration their opinion of a petition.

The DEP wants the three-judge panel to make these three concerns part of the NRC review of Oyster Creek's 2,400-page renewal application: the plant's vulnerability to a terrorist attack with hijacked airliners, the possibility of reactor vessel components exceeding their designed stress limits, and the availability of critical backup power to keep the reactor's cooling pumps running if there were a blackout.

The NRC staff also called for the denial of a separate petition from environmental and nuclear activists, including Gunter.

The activists want the same judges to hear concerns over Oyster Creek's drywell liner, a pressure barrier that's been designed to contain radioactive steam. The activists are worried because the vessel has been weakened by rust.

The activist coalition includes the New Jersey chapter of the Sierra Club, the New Jersey Environmental Federation, and Grandmothers, Mothers and More for Energy Safety.

NRC staff lawyers and officials from plant operator AmerGen Energy Co. said both the DEP and activists' petitions lacked supporting material and argued points irrelevant to the plant's renewal application.

At the same time, regulators reviewing Oyster Creek's license renewal application want to be assured the drywell won't corrode years from now. The NRC and AmerGen agreed last month to measure the drywell's thickness by 2009 and then once every 10 years.

What could further complicate business at the NRC is a third petition filed by Brick Mayor Joseph C. Scarpelli and other plant opponents. This "rulemaking petition" — now making its way through a separate bureaucratic course than the hearing petitions — asks the NRC to change its rules to allow more issues to be heard during renewal reviews.

But it can take three years for the NRC to decide rulemaking petitions. By that time, the NRC already will have decided on Oyster Creek's license extension.

Neil A. Sheehan, an NRC spokesman, said the three-year time period is on par with other federal agencies. Gathering information, soliciting input and drafting new rules take time, he said.

The NRC Petition Review Board working on the Scarpelli petition will decide if it wants to accept it this summer, Sheehan said. Hurrying the petition to have it in place before the renewal decision would discriminate against other petitioners, he said.

"It's also worth noting that it was long recognized that Oyster Creek was going to pursue license renewal, and interested parties could have submitted a rule-making petition when there was still more time left on the plant's current 40-year operating license," he said.

The activists want renewal reviews to include checks on security, emergency evacuation plans and the size of surrounding populations.

"The fact that the NRC puts these things outside the rules is ridiculous," said Paula Gotsch, a Brick resident and a member of Grandmothers, Mothers and More for Energy Safety, or GRAMMES. The group opposes the license renewal for Oyster Creek.

Renewal procedures eased

To win a renewed license, a plant operator need only show how it can manage environmental impact and age-related degradation of certain safety structures and components.

Regulators say existing guidelines are more predictable and stable than those in the 1990s.

The amended rules also have increased efficiency, they say. Public meetings, inspections and other benchmarks within the renewal process fit within a tight script that runs 22 months, or 30 months if the NRC grants the kind of hearing being sought by the DEP and the activists.

The NRC saves time by relying solely on its staff to decide on plant applications. The five NRC commissioners appointed by the president aren't required to sign off on license renewals, regulators say.

This expediency in evaluating renewal applications melds with the Bush administration's interest in increasing the amount of power generated from nuclear plants.

State governments have no say on whether a plant should receive a license renewal. Nevertheless, New Jersey officials say they have a responsibility to safeguard the public from potential health threats posed by Oyster Creek and three other reactors in Salem County.

For this reason, New Jersey has a team of nuclear experts in the Bureau of Nuclear Engineering, part of the DEP. The state has its own experts, in part, to review NRC decisions.

NRC's oversight process

State and federal nuclear experts have clashed before — over serious issues outside the renewal process.

In 2004, Campbell asked the NRC to make officials at the Hope Creek nuclear power plant fix a damaged cooling pump before restarting the reactor. Holding off, he said, would compromise public safety in Salem County.

Despite Campbell's stance, the NRC told plant officials they could restart the plant and wait 18 months before fixing the pump, as long as special monitors were installed.

Jill Lipoti, director of the DEP's Division of Environmental Safety and Health, has said the Reactor Oversight Process, or ROP, adopted six years ago had "significant flaws."

Some rule changes, she said, caused NRC inspectors to miss instances of managers ignoring complaints from workers about unsafe conditions at the Salem 1 and 2, and Hope Creek plants in Salem County. The NRC eventually ordered reforms at the plants, but only after a whistle-blower told regulators about workers not being heard.

NRC officials say changes to the ROP have focused inspectors on areas that would pose the most safety risk. Inspectors also now have more opportunities to follow up on trouble spots.

"Various state and other regulatory authorities that looked at this have found it to be a good program," Sheehan said. "Some European regulators have tried to emulate the ROP."

Congress created the NRC with the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974. The agency replaced the Atomic Energy Commission, which had the responsibility of both promoting and regulating nuclear power plants. Today, law forbids the NRC from attempting to make nuclear power the country's energy source of choice.

Despite the legal separation of responsibilities and regulators' insistence that they work to protect the public, critics of the agency say the NRC has ulterior motives.

Michele R. Donato, a Lavallette lawyer, said she developed that impression last year while representing several environmental groups opposed to the plant's relicensing.

"One of the difficulties is that you are dealing with an agency that psychologically thinks of itself as being there to promote nuclear power, rather than to regulate it," she said.

To view this article on-line

Nicholas Clunn: (609) 978-4597 or nclunn@app.com