Necessary But Not Sufficient

by: deciminyan

Tue May 10, 2011 at 12:58:25 PM EDT

Nuclear power, once viewed as the panacea that would wean us from fossil fuels, is starting to show some of its hidden costs. Despite the fact that they will impact Japan’s economy and quality of life for decades to come, the Fukushima disaster is just the tip of the iceberg. As plants built during the nuclear boom times come to the end of their useful lives, more of these hidden costs will be exposed to the public. And that’s becoming evident here in New Jersey.

The privately-run nuclear reactor at Oyster Creek in Lacey Township is scheduled to be closed and decommissioned starting December 31, 2019. The plant’s owner, Exelon, has made the decision to close the plant rather than build cooling towers that would reduce the amount of heated water that is currently dumped into the environmentally-fragile Barnegat Bay.

deciminyan :: Necessary But Not Sufficient

New Jersey Prepares for Oyster Creek Decommissioning - Or Does It?

State Environmental Commissioner Bob Martin has appointed a three-member safety panel (called the Oyster Creek Safety Advisory Panel) to oversee the closing of the plant. Martin will chair the panel which will include the state’s Director of the Office of Homeland Security and a nuclear safety expert to be named later. They will review Exelon’s progress in implementing the planned shutdown, conduct public hearings, and serve in an advisory capacity. While I applaud the state’s involvement in this critical activity, this is analogous to treating a gaping wound with a Band-Aid®.

There are many concerns and unanswered questions about this panel and their clout.
The primary reason that Exelon is closing the plant is their refusal to comply with environmental factors affecting Barnegat Bay. Yet there are no independent environmentalists on the safety panel. And the plant will continue to operate through the end of this decade, exacerbating the problems caused by dumping warm water into the bay’s ecosystem. It would be prudent and a great service to the people of New Jersey if Commissioner Martin appoints an environmental expert to the panel - someone with no ties to industry or government.
There is no incentive for Exelon to operate and decommission the plant safely. In fact, Exelon has a record of blatantly ignoring safety violations and taking risky steps to keep some of their other plants on line. As the New York Times recently reported, at one of their plants in Illinois, Exelon was aware of corrosion and thinning of pipes carrying cooling water, and chose to relax the safety requirements rather than fix the problem. When the Nuclear Regulatory Commission learned of this, the penalty to Exelon was a slap on the wrist - a reprimand with no real ramifications to Exelon and no incentive to avoid a repeat incident.
Given that the Oyster Creek plant will be closing, there is nothing to incentivize the company to make the necessary capital investments that would ensure the safe operation of the plant between now and 2019.

While the panel will issue annual reports, these reports will be vetted by Exelon and not all of the panel’s findings will necessarily be made public.

According to Larry Hajna, a spokesman for the Department of Environmental Protection, there is no date set yet by which the third member of the advisory panel will be named. Nor is there a time frame for the first of the annual public hearings.

Expand the Scope of the Public Hearings

Part of the issue here is that of multiple jurisdictions. The regulations governing the construction, operation, and decommissioning of nuclear power plants are set by the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission. New Jersey can only go so far under state environmental law to ensure the safety of its citizens.

The closing of Oyster Creek has ramifications for everyone. There are some critical unanswered questions that are outside the scope of New Jersey’s jurisdiction, but are just as important to the public as the water temperature in Barnegat Bay.

Now is not too early to ask the question, “What is the plan for the Oyster Creek site after the power plant is shut down?” According to Neil Sheehan, a spokesman for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Exelon will be required to submit a License Termination Plan, but not until two years prior to the operating license expiration. Ultimately, the company has two choices - they can remove the fuel and radioactive components, remediate the environment, and dismantle the plant, or they can mothball the site. A hybrid mix of both approaches is also a possibility. The company has sixty years after the license termination to complete their decommissioning.

This is an expensive undertaking, especially for a private company that cannot expect any return on post-decommissioning investments. And sixty years is a long time. Companies can go bankrupt, pollution-friendly administrations can take power and relax the rules, and accidents can still happen.

In addition to including an environmentalist on the panel, the upcoming hearings should be expanded to include discussion on options for decommissioning, how the spent fuel will be handled, and decontamination of the site and its surroundings. The NRC should also participate in these panels, since they are the party responsible for monitoring and enforcing short-term and long-term safety activities.

While its not in a publicly-traded company’s DNA to act in the public interest, that’s exactly what we need Exelon to do. New Jersey’s hearings will start within a year. The NRC’s Licence Termination hearings will not be held for several more years. For the sake of our children, citizens must take an active part in these hearings to ensure that the interests of the public are balanced have an equal or greater influence on the closure plans than the interests of the company.

Long Term Approach to Nuclear Power

There are 104 commercial nuclear plants operating in the United States, the most recent one came on line in 1996. Every high-value installation is a terrorist target, but nuclear plants more so. Release of radiation has a widespread effect, and by its very nature is more prone to causing “terror” than a fossil-fuel or renewable energy facility. There are some who propose building more nuclear plants - with all of the hidden costs that are coming to view. Our precious investment dollars and more precious environment would be better served by phasing out the dirty and expensive nuclear industry and working to make renewable energy more cost-effective and ubiquitous.

Exelon was contacted for comments for this article, but as of the time this is being posted has not returned phone calls.