[NukeNet] Fw: APP Aug 5, Facts back criticism of drywell at A-plant BY ATTORNEY RICHARD WEBSTER

[Edith]

Facts back criticism of drywell at A-plant
Posted by the Asbury Park Press on 08/6/06

BY RICHARD WEBSTER

Iam concerned that your Aug. 1 article "Radiation barrier tests inadequate, 
critics say" may have inadvertently given your readers the mistaken 
impression that the Coalition to Stop the Relicensing of Oyster Creek does 
not have strong evidence to back up its claims. Nothing could be further 
from the truth. The coalition has been careful not to overstate its case and 
has always based its assertions on the facts.

We know that in some areas, the steel drywell shell at Oyster Creek corroded 
from 1.154 inches to 0.603 inches between 1969 and 1992. We know that the 
epoxy coating applied to protect the shell in 1992 had a service life of 
about 10 years. We know that water has continued to leak onto the outside of 
the shell.
10:52 AM 08/06/2006 ave shown that the shell is less than 0.02 inches from 
failure, based on AmerGen's own assessment. We also know that corrosion 
rates of more than 0.03 inches per year were experienced before 1992. Thus, 
we have concluded based on the evidence that the shell could rapidly corrode 
to beyond current safety margins during any license extension period. Such 
corrosion could lead to collapse of the shell and a major accident in the 
worst-case scenario.

We are less certain about the current safety of the shell because AmerGen's 
current monitoring and assessment methods are inadequate. Specific 
inadequacies are that AmerGen has monitored only 1 percent of the most 
degraded area of the shell over time and has therefore failed to measure how 
much of this area is severely degraded.

AmerGen has also never monitored an area at the bottom of the shell termed 
the embedded region, an area the coalition's corrosion expert believes could 
now be experiencing the highest corrosion rates. Finally, AmerGen's last 
round of measurements in 1996 turned out to be inaccurate, so that the only 
measurements we have are now about 12 years old.

Thus, we know the shell could buckle during the license renewal period, but 
AmerGen has so far avoided doing sufficient monitoring and assessment to 
determine with reasonable certainty whether the shell is currently safe. 
Because the plant is currently operating that should be cause for alarm, not 
a strike against the coalition.

The debate about relicensing should not obscure the need for New Jersey and 
the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to require AmerGen to prove that the plant 
is safe on an ongoing basis. Because no one can be certain about the current 
safety of the plant, your readers should be asking why it continues to 
operate.

Richard Webster is the attorney for the Coalition to Stop the Relicensing of 
Oyster Creek. He is affiliated with the Rutgers Environmental Law Clinic, 
Newark.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/nukenet_energyjustice.net/attachments/20060806/27e088ef/attachment.html