Posted by the Asbury Park Press on 03/15/07

BY DENNIS ZANNONI

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.

http://www.app.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070315/OPINION/703150425/1030