[NukeNet] Zannoni Speaks Out on Oyster Creek

Thu Mar 15 09:40:38 EDT 2007

From: Jeffrey Brown [mailto:jeffbrownnj at verizon.net] 
Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2007 9:15 AM
To: Willie deCamp; Suzanne Leta Liou; Richard Webster; Peggi Sturmfels;
Paula A Gotsch; Paul Gunter; Michele Donato; Janet Tauro; Crystal Snedden;
Adam Garber; Julia Huff; Grace Costanzo; Edith Gbur
Cc: Norm Cohen; Eric Epstein
Subject: NRC unresponsive to concerns about Oyster Creek

NRC unresponsive to concerns about Oyster Creek

Posted by the Asbury <http://www.app.com/>  Park Press on 03/15/07

BY DENNIS ZANNONI

Story ChatPost Comment
<http://www.app.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?Date=20070315&Category=OPINION&Art
No=703150425&SectionCat=&Template=printart#comments> 

Since being removed as the chief nuclear engineer for New Jersey, I have had
some time to reflect on my removal, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and
the Oyster Creek nuclear power plant in Lacey. ("DEP yanks staffer who
monitors Oyster Creek," Feb. 25.)

I made my decision to go public about the NRC and Oyster Creek while
reflecting on the life of my dad, a World War II veteran and 50-year
business owner, who died Feb. 15. I knew he would have told me that my job
security was secondary to protecting the health and safety of the public.

The NRC's role in this process should be put in proper context. It is just
one of many factors that need to be considered. The overall decision rests
with Gov. Corzine and the citizens of New Jersey.

To arrive at the right decision, the following areas must be addressed:
economic impact, need for power, employment impact, security, emergency
preparedness, spent fuel storage and accidents, property taxes, site
cleanup, plant safety, plant performance, plant condition, environmental
impacts, future site use, AmerGen (the plant operator), the NRC, new
reactors, plant location, public opposition, public support and accident
insurance.

But those of us involved in the state Department of Environmental
Protection's Bureau of Nuclear Engineering assumed that the NRC would be
more open-minded toward our involvement since Oyster Creek was going to be
the first nuclear power plant to operate more than 40 years. We were wrong.
Judge for yourself.

We asked the NRC to conduct meetings near Oyster Creek to educate the public
about the NRC license renewal process. The process is difficult to
understand. The NRC had one meeting more than two years ago.

We asked the NRC to conduct public hearings in the vicinity of Oyster Creek
so the public would have an opportunity to provide input to the license
renewal. The NRC told us to submit "legal contentions" if we wanted a
hearing.

We submitted three "legal contentions" after reviewing more than 2,000 pages
of material within the 90-day NRC-mandated review period. The NRC rejected
all three.

We asked the NRC to transcribe the NRC license renewal audit team exit
meeting so the public's input would be recorded. The NRC said no.

We asked the NRC staff to change the NRC Audit Report issuance date, which
was backdated eight months by the NRC. The staff said no. We contacted NRC
attorneys, who issued the document with the correct date.

We asked the NRC to repeat a one-time NRC license renewal site inspection
because the NRC failed to meet the requirements of the NRC/State Inspection
Agreement during the inspection. The NRC said no.

We asked the NRC to go public with the discovery of water in the drywell.
The NRC said no, so we went public ourselves.

We have been asking the NRC for three years to allow us to review the NRC
analysis for a spent fuel pool accidents from airplanes. The NRC has this
analysis. The NRC originally said we could review this analysis, but we
needed special security clearance. We obtained the required security
clearance last year and again requested to see the NRC analysis. The NRC
said no.

Only two major changes have occurred to the Oyster Creek license renewal
application since it was submitted. First, major revisions occurred as a
result of New Jersey citizens' drywell contention. Second, major revisions
occurred due to the inclusion of the combustion turbines into the
application. This was raised by the state. No significant changes occurred
as a result of the NRC.

We asked the NRC to put missing technical documents referenced in the
license renewal application on the public record. The NRC promised it would,
but never did.

We requested that the NRC consider security and emergency preparedness
issues in its review of Oyster Creek. The NRC said no.

We hired our own expert to review the effects of water in the drywell, since
we lacked confidence in the NRC.

We asked the NRC to consider the comments we submitted to the NRC concerning
the Oyster Creek License Renewal Safety Evaluation Report. The NRC ignored
all of our comments.

We, along with the federal Environmental Protection Agency and numerous New
Jersey citizens, submitted comments to the NRC concerning the NRC Oyster
Creek License Renewal Environmental Impact Statement. The NRC ignored the
comments.

Corzine asked an NRC commissioner to hire an independent body to determine
if Oyster Creek can operate another 20 years. The commissioner told the
governor that the NRC Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards would meet
his request.

This committee is neither independent nor objective. Its members are NRC
employees and they spend little time reviewing the information. They never
visited the site. They have never identified any problems with any of the
license renewal applications they reviewed. This expert panel did not
identify any issue on its own. It did not meet the governor's request.

We asked the NRC to address the NRC control room habitability safety issue
for Oyster Creek, which is still unresolved. The NRC said no. This real
safety issue has no deadline, but the license renewal process must be
completed within 1 1/2 years - no matter what.

The NRC recently completed its year-end review of Oyster Creek. The plant
took almost an hour to declare an alert emergency level more than two years
ago and the NRC has still not resolved it. I was on this inspection and I
have followed this issue closely. This is another example of the NRC failing
to do its job.

Dennis Zannoni, Florence, is the former chief nuclear engineer in the state
Department of Environmental Protection.

StoryChat

Post a Comment
<http://forums.app.com/check_comment.php?articleId=703150425&section=Opinion
&title=%0D%0ANRC+unresponsive+to+concerns+about+Oyster+Creek%0D%0A%0D%0A&cat
egoryId=OPINION&pubDate=20070315&relationValue=BBvalue1%3DOPINION&cacheTime=
5&display=1> Post a Comment 

  _____  

This article does not have any comments associated with it

Copyright C 2007 Asbury Park Press. All rights reserved.
Use of this site signifies your agreement to the Terms of Service
<http://www.app.com/terms/>  and Privacy Policy
<http://www.app.com/privacy/> . (Updated June 7, 2005) Site design by Asbury
Park Press <http://www.app.com/>  / Contact us
<http://www.app.com/apps/pbcs.dll/section?Category=CONTACTUS> 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mail.energyjustice.net/pipermail/nukenet_energyjustice.net/attachments/20070315/14febe9f/attachment.html 
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/gif
Size: 488 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://mail.energyjustice.net/pipermail/nukenet_energyjustice.net/attachments/20070315/14febe9f/attachment.gif 
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/gif
Size: 1126 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://mail.energyjustice.net/pipermail/nukenet_energyjustice.net/attachments/20070315/14febe9f/attachment-0001.gif 
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/gif
Size: 69 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://mail.energyjustice.net/pipermail/nukenet_energyjustice.net/attachments/20070315/14febe9f/attachment-0002.gif 