The owner of Calvert Cliffs, Maryland's aging nuclear power plant, moved forward last spring where others have hesitated, ,, becoming the first in the country to apply for renewal of its 40-year license.

Not long ago, that would have meant microscope-intense scrutiny and daunting hurdles -- a complete physical to measure the health of the Lusby plant.

But over the past few years, anticipating a wave of applications from the nation's aging nuclear plants, the Nuclear Regulatory -- Commission has substantially rewritten the rules to create what it describes as a "more stable and predictable" process.

It is no longer necessary for Calvert Cliffs, or any other plant seeking renewal, to present hard evidence that its facilities are in good working order. Instead, the NRC is requiring management plans that describe how the plants will detect problems and maintain safe equipment.

In making that change, say critics, the NRC has cut loose a key safety net that many credit with catching unexpected and dangerous flaws at a showcase Massachusetts plant seven years ago.

"If you don't look for problems, you won't see any," said David Lochbaum, a nuclear engineer and former plant inspector now with the Union of Concerned Scientists in Washington.

"It's a predictable outcome, but not necessarily a safe outcome," he said.

Jim Riccio, an attorney for the consumer group Public Citizen, said that under the original standards, many aging plants would not pass if forced to undergo new, comprehensive reviews.

"The reality is that taking a good hard look puts at risk a plant's current license, not the one in the future," he said. "These plants are aging much faster than the NRC expected."

By 2015, about 40 percent of the nation's 118 nuclear plants are expected to either file to extend their operating license or cease operating.

NRC's view

The new rules, however, will have little measurable effect on safety, the NRC argues.

"The nature of the information to be disclosed has changed from one that looks at particular data to one that looks at the process," said Christopher Grimes, the NRC's director of the license-renewal project. "Practically, there isn't a big difference."

He and officials in the nuclear industry say the old way was a grossly inefficient and costly exercise, producing information largely available to the NRC already.

Disagreement on that point could shape the debate as Calvert Cliffs' application enters the spotlight. The case is being watched around the country, and every issue is likely to be

challenged as the nuclear industry and its opponents fight for precedents that will affect future plant licenses.

When Calvert Cliffs, which is owned and operated by Baltimore Gas and Electric Co., applied in April for a 20-year renewal of its license, only one other plant in the nation had ever made serious moves toward application. It quickly turned into an embarrassing debacle for the NRC.

The 30-year-old Yankee Atomic Electric Co.'s nuclear plant in Rowe, Mass., was considered among the nation's safest plants in 1990 and was widely expected to win renewal with no major snags.

But a review of tests on the plant's reactor pressure vessel quickly revealed trouble. In nuclear plants, those steel vessels can become brittle from years of radiation bombardment. In the event of a nuclear accident, a brittle vessel might rupture, exposing the highly radioactive reactor core.

Despite the test results, plant officials insisted that Yankee was safe. The NRC rejected the recommendation of its chief metallurgist, who believed the plant should be shut down. After some pondering, the agency decided to let it continue operating while the uncertainties were weighed.

But detailed test results were part of the public record and were reviewed by the Union of Concerned Scientists and the New England Coalition on Nuclear Pollution. Concerned, they went to the media and Congress, and pressure on the NRC intensified.

"The question wouldn't have come up if it hadn't been for license renewal," said Lochbaum of the scientists' group.

Yankee closed the plant in 1992, a step ahead of the NRC, which had decided to shut it down. Closing the plant was preferable to spending $23 million on tests and inspections to meet the requirements, Yankee Rowe officials said.

Under the new rules, will the same test records for Calvert Cliffs be available for public review?

"Probably not," said the NRC's Grimes. "We don't normally get that information."

Whether the problems at Yankee Rowe would surface under today's requirements "is speculative," he said. "The critics probably say the renewal played some kind of role, but from our perspective, we think our normal processes would have found and addressed those issues anyhow," Grimes said. "We think eventually we would have caught it."

"It's not like we're trying to hide anything," he added. "How much of the information being disclosed, how much of the detail is really important to the regulator, given that much of it is being recorded and maintained by the company?"

Officials at Calvert Cliffs, which began operations in the mid-1970s, say the comparable test results for their reactor vessel were conducted about 1995 and are on file with the NRC for anyone to review.

Meeting the previous standards would have required new reviews of more than 150,000 components, said Barth Doroshuk, project manager for Calvert Cliffs' license renewal. "Under the new rules, we still have to go component by component. The only difference is there was a recognition that certain parts have already been tested so well.

"We agree with the public and critics that nuclear safety has got to remain the No. 1 goal."

The change merely eliminates the overlap between the old rules and routine safety standards required at each plant, said officials with the Nuclear Energy Institute.

"The regulatory process already assures good maintenance," said Angie Howard, senior vice president of the institute.

But because years can pass between tests, critics say that relying so heavily on the latest -- but perhaps old -- tests is insufficient. The nuclear industry is still relatively young and much remains unknown about the potential problems of aging plants, said Riccio of Public Citizen.

Plants typically forward summaries of their test results to the NRC. While those go into the public record, more detailed reports not sent to the agency may be kept from public scrutiny.

Critics petition

Through a petition filed this month by the Washington-based National Whistleblower Center, critics hope to restore some of the original requirements.

"This will be the No. 1 challenge," said Michael D. Kohn, a lawyer representing the group. The NRC's new rules, he said, prohibit citizens from challenging key safety issues.

"What we're saying is that you can't take from the public the right to a hearing to determine whether the reactor is safe and can survive for another 20 years," Kohn said. "There is no one looking over the NRC's shoulder to make sure they're really doing their job.

"Essentially, they've come up with a procedure prohibiting citizen groups from challenging whether the reactor core is safe. That's what it's all about."

If the whistle-blower group clears its first hurdle, it will achieve legal standing to "intervene." That means it will become an equal party with rights to investigate, subpoena records and depose witnesses during the renewal.

Pub Date: 8/26/98