[NukeNet] 2 oyster creaky articles; terror target? and NRC review committee to meet

Mon Sep 25 11:58:53 CDT 2006

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

Asbury Park Press, Sept. 24, 2006

REACTOR'S LICENSE MAY HINGE ON RULING

By Nicholas Clunn, Staff Writer

The decision on whether federal regulators will change course and make
terrorism part of the assessment the Oyster Creek nuclear power plant
must pass to have its license renewed might hinge on the
interpretation of a landmark law created 36 years ago.

Officials with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission have long said that
the National Environmental Policy Act, or NEPA, does not require that
the possibility of terrorist attacks be taken into account before the
agency issues licenses or permits.

They reiterated that point in June after state officials asked for a
special hearing on Oyster Creek. The state Department of Environmental
Protection contends the Lacey plant, as a condition of receiving a 20-
year license renewal from the NRC, should undergo a terrorism-impact
review because such due diligence is required under NEPA.

In this argument, the state might have a friend in the Ninth U.S.
Circuit Court of Appeals and, quite possibly, the U.S. Supreme Court.

The appellate panel in June said the NRC should have considered the
environmental consequences of a potential terrorist attack before
approving a storage site for radioactive waste at a nuclear power
plant in California. The utility handicapped by the ruling has vowed
to file an appeal with the U.S. Supreme Court, the deadline for which
is Friday.

Mindful of the implications a Supreme Court ruling could bring, the
five NRC commissioners have indefinitely postponed making a decision
on New Jersey's request for a hearing on Oyster Creek.

The outcome of the California case could have much wider effects
beyond Oyster Creek and the nuclear power industry, which is on the
brink of a renaissance.

NEPA often comes into play whenever a federal agency needs to consider
the environmental consequences of a major construction project. The
approval processes for liquefied natural gas terminals, dams, highways
and railways could change if the Ninth Circuit ruling stands.

"It would certainly impede the licensing process," said Mike Bauser,
deputy general council for the Nuclear Energy Institute, an advocacy
group for the industry in Washington, D.C. Bauser also predicted
delays of important federal projects.

No consensus on risk

The crux of this issue is how government should characterize the
likelihood of a terrorist attack. Although the NRC contends that such
attacks are "remote and speculative," the state DEP has described an
attack on Oyster Creek as "reasonably foreseeable."

"A reasonably foreseeable impact is the usual trigger-point for NEPA
reviews," state lawyers argued in a brief submitted to the commission.

Public opinion on the risk of a terrorist attack also varies.

"I think the chance would be about zero," said John Kline, a 66-year-
old life insurance salesman from the Ortley Beach section of Dover
Township. "I can't see why a terrorist would come to South Jersey,
myself."

But Dover Township resident Seth Dinowitz said terrorists would be
interested in Oyster Creek because of its location.

"It's definitely a target," said Dinowitz, a 36-year-old emergency
room physician. "You have a dense population in Monmouth and Ocean
counties."

Requesting an NRC hearing on the threat of terrorism at Oyster Creek
is one of several tactics the state has taken to challenge the plant's
bid for a renewed license.

A renewal for the 36-year-old plant would allow it to operate for an
additional 20 years beyond the 2009 expiration date of its existing
40-year license.

Proponents of the renewal say Oyster Creek pumps money into the local
economy, provides jobs and safely generates electricity without
producing emissions. Critics say the plant is unsafe and that Ocean
County should not be a testing ground for the nation's oldest reactor.

The state's position

At the core of its argument, the state said it is difficult to
reconcile the NRC's stance on the risk of a terrorist attack and the
great steps the agency took after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, to
bolster security at the nation's 103 reactors.

"It is illogical for the Commission to consider the threat of
terrorist attacks extremely serious outside the NEPA context but only
speculative and theoretical within it," state lawyers wrote in a brief
to the commission.

On the other side, the NRC's lawyers pointed to numerous agency
decisions that have said that terrorism should not be looked at during
licensing decisions under NEPA.

Doing so would be redundant, regulators say. The NRC already looks at
the terrorism threat through existing programs. It also wouldn't make
sense to wait until a licensing decision for the agency to consider
terrorism concerns at a particular facility, regulators have said.

Signed into law by President Nixon on the first day of 1970, the
National Environmental Protection Act served as the cornerstone of the
environmental programs built by federal, state and local governments
in the 1970s. It's credited for mandating that government consider the
environmental consequences of any proposed action before a decision is
made.

According to Commissioner Jeffrey S. Merrifield, one of five
presidential appointees who run the NRC, and who visited Oyster Creek
last week, the result of a terrorist attack wasn't one of the
consequences on the minds of those who wrote the law.

"Terrorism was not something that was in consideration of the crafters
of the National Environmental Protection Act when it was first
enacted," he said. "From a statutory construction standpoint,
terrorism wasn't part of what was to be considered."

Nicholas Clunn: (732) 643-4072 or nclunn at app.com

Return to Table of Contents <> 

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

Asbury Park Press, Sept. 24, 2006

ADVISORY PANEL WILL MAKE OYSTER CREEK ASSESSMENT

By Nicholas Clunn, Staff Writer

As part of the review the Oyster Creek Generating Station must pass to
obtain a renewed operating license from the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission, it needs to undergo a secondary review by an advisory
group within the agency.

That group, the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards, will begin
its look at Oyster Creek during a public meeting Oct. 3. The meeting
will take place from 1:30 to 5 p.m. at NRC headquarters outside
Washington, D.C.

Composed of technical experts, the committee will make an independent
assessment of judgments already made by NRC staff about Oyster Creek.
In the end, the committee's findings and advice will factor into the
agency's final decision.

A renewed license would allow Oyster Creek to run for an additional 20
years. Without it, the plant will close when its initial license
expires in 2009. Plant operator AmerGen Energy Co. filed the renewal
application with the NRC in July 2005.

On Oct. 3, a subcommittee of the Advisory Committee on Reactor
Safeguards will hear presentations from NRC staff, plant operator
AmerGen, the state Department of Environmental Protection and others
interested in Oyster Creek's renewal application. Subcommittee members
will then propose positions and actions for the whole committee to
deliberate at a later date.

Those interested in providing oral or written statements to the
subcommittee should notify its coordinator, Michael Junge, by
Thursday. Junge can be reached at (301) 415-6855.

The meeting will take place at Two White Flint North, one of the two
office buildings that make up NRC headquarters in Rockville, Md. The
street address for the building is 11545 Rockville Pike. The meeting
will be in Room T-2B3.

Nicholas Clunn: (732) 643-4072 or nclunn at app.com

Return to Table of Contents <> 

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

Daily Record, Sept. 22, 2006

Coalition for Peace and Justice; UNPLUG Salem Campaign, 321 Barr Ave,
Linwood; NJ08221; 609-601-8583

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/nukenet_energyjustice.net/attachments/20060925/84d23ee9/attachment.html 