Decade
of Resistance 
shundahai@shundahai.org
Shundahai Network
Dedicated to Breaking
the Nuclear Chain
Shundahai is a Newe (Western Shoshone) word meaning "Peace and Harmony with all Creation"
June 22, 2006
|
N.J. Wants NRC to Weigh Terror Threat in Licensing
Should the vulnerability of the Oyster Creek nuclear power plant to terrorist attacks be considered during its bid for a renewed operating license? New Jersey thinks so and may get its wish granted, thanks to a federal appeals court ruling this month. The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission's position that a federal law "does not require a consideration of the environmental impact of terrorist attacks" is unreasonable, according to a decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on a California nuclear plant dispute. "Our concern was that . . . the design of this particular reactor (Oyster Creek) and its spent fuel pool storage make it particularly vulnerable to attack" and that should be considered during the plant's relicensing review, said Lisa P. Jackson, commissioner of the state Department of Environmental Protection. NRC spokesman Neil A. Sheehan said it's "premature to say that this (court decision) would have any implications for the Oyster Creek license renewal application" because the NRC has not decided whether to appeal it. The decision applies only to the Diablo Canyon plant in California and not necessarily any other facility at this point, he said. Oyster Creek's vulnerability to terrorist attack is one of New Jersey's prime concerns regarding the Lacey plant's quest for a 20-year license extension. The plant's current operating license expires in April 2009. Oyster Creek's vulnerability to aircraft attacks, especially the vulnerability of its spent nuclear fuel pool, must be analyzed before the NRC decides whether to renew the plant's license, former state Environmental Commissioner Bradley M. Campbell said in a letter to the NRC last year. "You need to look at whether (a) plant that's configured the way it is . . . is more vulnerable than others in a densely populated area before you make a decision to keep it operating," Jackson said in an interview Friday. A DEP nuclear engineer, when asked last year about the possibility of a terrorist attack on Oyster Creek, said the spent fuel pool would be the biggest concern. "It's only logical that when you're evaluating a relicensing application that you would take into account the risk of terrorism and a . . . feasible evacuation plan," said Janet Tauro, a Brick resident and member of Grandmothers, Mothers and More for Energy Safety. The group is against Oyster Creek's license renewal proposal. Last year, the DEP requested a hearing before a federal Atomic Safety and Licensing Board panel on three contentions, or concerns. They are Oyster Creek's vulnerability to aircraft attack, metal fatigue in nuclear reactor parts and back-up power to safely shut down the reactor during a blackout. The three-judge panel, a quasi-judicial arm of the NRC, rejected the DEP's request for a hearing. The DEP has appealed the decision to the NRC commissioners. Last week, the DEP asked the NRC to "consider this controlling precedent" — the appeals court ruling — when deciding on the DEP's appeal, according to a state document. The DEP also asked that "the NRC fulfill its legal obligation, pursuant to this decision, to complete a (National Environmental Policy Act) analysis of the potential environmental effects of a terrorist attack at Oyster Creek," the state document says. Earlier this month, the San Francisco-based appeals court ruled in a dispute over an NRC license for an interim spent fuel storage facility at the Diablo Canyon nuclear power plant in California. The NRC "contends that the possibility of a terrorist attack on a nuclear facility is so remote and speculative that the potential consequences of such an attack need not be considered at all" in an environmental review, the court's opinion says. "We find it difficult to reconcile the Commission's conclusion that . . . the possibility of a terrorist attack on a nuclear facility is "remote and speculative,' with its stated efforts to undertake a "top to bottom' security review against this same threat," the opinion says. The possibility of terrorist attack is not so remote and highly speculative that it is beyond the scope of the National Environmental Policy Act, it says. "They ought to give (the court's decision) a really good, close look," said Michele Donato, a lawyer who lives and has an office in Lavallette. She opposes Oyster Creek relicensing. Oyster Creek spokeswoman Rachelle Benson said "we're evaluating the (court) decision to determine its impact, if any . . . but we don't believe that it has any impact on our application" for license renewal. After the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, the NRC required nuclear plants to find ways to minimize the potential impacts of attacks, including an airborne assault, according to an NRC rule proposal. The NRC also depends on enhanced airport and airplane security since the attacks. Since Sept. 11, 2001, about $20 million has been spent on security upgrades at Oyster Creek, plant officials have said. Spent fuel pool Oyster Creek's concrete-lined, water-filled pool for highly radioactive spent nuclear fuel is 40 feet deep. It holds about 375 tons of spent fuel in the shape of long, thin rods. The elevated pool is next to the reactor in a reinforced concrete building topped by a metal roof, not a dome like at many other plants. The pool is outside the plant's containment system, which is designed to prevent a release of radiation into the environment if an accident happens. But it's likely that at least some radiation would escape or be vented to the outdoor air if the reactor core is damaged — a remote possibility, according to a February e-mail from Exelon to the NRC. The core contains the nuclear fuel. AmerGen Energy, a subsidiary of Exelon, runs Oyster Creek. However, it is highly unlikely that an airplane crashing into the reactor building would cause any significant damage to the fuel in the fuel pool, according to a fact sheet on the Oyster Creek license renewal Web site. In a 2005 report to Congress, a National Academies' panel said "successful terrorist attacks on spent fuel pools, though difficult, are possible." An attack leading to a certain kind of fire "could result in the release of large amounts of radioactive material," the panel's report says. The NRC staff has considered the potential cumulative impacts of Oyster Creek's operations, including a 20-year license extension, according to a draft supplemental environmental impact statement released this month. And the staff concluded the potential cumulative impacts would be small. Plant opponents and environmental activists criticized the NRC draft report, which is open to public comment. Acts of terrorism are outside the scope of the environmental review for license renewal applications, according to an NRC document on the Web. "The commission has been very clear that security matters need to be dealt with on an ongoing basis," the NRC's Sheehan said. And the NRC has been reviewing security issues involving spent fuel pools, according to a subsequent e-mail sent by Sheehan. The first of three phases required plants to identify, and later implement, strategies that would maintain or restore cooling for the reactor core, containment building and spent fuel pool after explosions or fire, the e-mail says. Phase two calls for assessments of plant resources that could be used to mitigate damage to spent fuel pools and surrounding areas, the e-mail says. Phase three entails nuclear plants identifying ways to improve the ability to protect the reactor core and containment from terrorist attack, the e-mail says. The NRC is in the second phase and reviewing information provided by the companies, the e-mail says. Last year, Brick Mayor Joseph C. Scarpelli, a plant opponent, and others filed a petition with the NRC aimed at expanding the number of issues the agency considers when it reviews license renewal applications. The NRC considers a plant's aging management program and potential environmental impact during the license renewal process. Factors such as demographics, siting, emergency evacuation and site security also should be considered, according to the petition. Because of the appeals court decision, Scarpelli said he feels more confident that the NRC will have to consider the petition. "I've been saying all along that their scope is too narrow," he said. This story includes material from previous Press stories. Todd B. Bates: (732) 643-4237 or tbates@app.com Copyright © 2006 Asbury Park Press
|