The recent release of the Root Cause Analysis to determine the reasons behind the tritium leak at the Oyster Creek Nuclear Plant eight days after receiving relicensing approval for another twenty years shows that Exelon knew about possible thinning of the pipes that leaked as early as October 2007, but did nothing about it. The report also details a review based upon incorrect assumptions, a pipe inspection program that failed to identify flaws, and lack of an independent review.

It is now evident why Exelon toiled so hard to keep this report from public review. It clearly shows that the plant's prior owner, GPU, abandoned maintenance of the pipes because it was going to close the plant when its original 40-year-license expired. Even though Exelon knew it was buying a jalopy for a knock down price, it did not determine the extent of the pipe problems before applying for relicensing. Instead, it used GPU's inadequate and incorrect data without question. As a result the relicensing application was both incomplete and inaccurate.

"Isn't it outrageous that radioactive tritium had to be released into the environment before Exelon or NRC took a look at those buried pipes?" said Janet Tauro, who serves on the board of directors of the New Jersey Environmental Federation. "Why couldn't this have been done before relicensing. This is a terrible indictment of the review process and one is left with a nagging fear of what's next?"

The report reveals that leaking pipes had been a problem from the 1980's with separate leaks occurring in the early nineties, including the bottom of the Condensate Storage Tank. However, Exelon's program basis documents to support the relicensing of Oyster Creek relied upon improper assumptions that the pipes that burst in April had been replaced during the mid-Nineties with stainless steel, which is less prone to corrosion, and that a coating to prevent corrosion had been applied to the entire length of pipe.

This is the latest in a long line of the safety-related issues where the actual state of the plant was not reflected in Exelon's records, and not pursued by NRC staff. A coaltion of citizen's and environmental groups had to litigate for three years for additional testing of Oyster Creek's drywell, the corroding metal containment that surrounds the reactor and shields the public from radiation in the event of a meltdown.

The program review also did not spot thinning pipes and the fact that coatings applied to ward off corrosion were poorly applied, and done in a "patchwork manner".

It is now abundantly clear that Exelon did not adequately address aging management of the pipes, and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission did not identify the deficiency during its review. The report candidly states there was a "lack of independent review of the document" which led to "insufficient/nonexistent program reviews."

These serious lapses both in Exelon management and in NRC staff's ability to clearly indentify deficiencies and order corrective measures are an indictment of the entire review process. Essentially NRC accepted a license application based on wishful thinking and never conducted
appropriate analysis to ensure environmental safety.

"We always knew Exelon and the NRC had a much too cozy relationship, but this really proves it," said Paula Gotsch of Grandmothers, Mothers, and More for Energy Safety, one of five citizens and environmental groups opposing relicensing. "What else did NRC give
Exelon a pass on? This is a nuclear facility where an accident can lead to the destruction of the entire Jersey Shore. And the NRC couldn't conduct an adequate review?"

"We can't allow nuclear power plants to operate on hope," said Richard Webster, of the Eastern Environmental Law Center, and attorney for a coalition of citizen and environmental groups challenging relicensing. "Now we know neither Exelon nor the NRC took care of
safety and the environment in the past. We now need to ensure that they take care of these issues going forward."

The root cause report, which was released in a redacted form, was obtained through a Freedom of Information request filed by Paul Gunter, representing Nuclear Information Service, a coalition member. In addition, NRC released e-mail exchanges surrounding the coaltion's inquiries regarding buried pipes.

An e-mail written by an NRC official is indicative of the agency's reluctance to be transparent. Although, the official indicated that some of the questions had been answered in follow-up e-mails to Mr. Webster, he
complained, "this e-mail will be awfully long if we input the answers - unless you can work magic and tell him nothing, being brief will be difficult."

Eventually, NRC staff inappropriately refused to answer any further questions about buried pipes because Mr. Webster had filed a lawsuit on behalf of the coalition on a separate matter. This intolerable episode clearly shows that NRC staff are actively working to conceal information from the public.

It is clear that an independent review of all safety systems at Oyster Creek is essential to because NRC failure to ensure proper management of the pipes leaking tritium and the drywell could well be just the
tip of the iceberg. To ensure safety, it is imperative that elected officials require an immediate independent safety analysis of Oyster Creek, and it is high time for our Congressional delegation to call for a full-scale investigation by the Government Accountability Office
into the NRC's dangerously shoddy relicensing procedures and disregard for the public.