Don't back off on cooling tower

December 13, 2009

The state Legislature may finally do what the Department of Environmental Protection and Gov. Jon Corzine should have done long ago: Mandate a cooling tower at the Oyster Creek nuclear reactor in Lacey to mitigate the plant's harmful environmental and economic impact.
A bill proposed by Sen. Bob Smith, D-Middlesex, is scheduled to be heard by the Senate Environment Committee in Trenton Monday in what is shaping up as an epic showdown between Oyster Creek owner Exelon and the state's environmental groups, which are firmly united in support of the legislation. Among those expected to testify against it is Exelon CEO John Rowe.
The bill would impose conditions on all energy generation facilities that withdraw water from or discharge water to a "shallow lagoonal estuary." At Oyster Creek, those conditions could only be satisfied by constructing a cooling tower.
Since the plant opened in 1969, it has used an open-loop system in which water from the creek is pumped into the plant and then discharged, warmer than when it came in. Cooling towers, used in nearly half of the nation's nuclear plants, employ a closed-loop system. Discharged water is piped to the top of a cooling tower and then sprayed. The water either evaporates or falls to the tower's base for reuse in the plant.
The current cooling system draws more than 1.4 billion gallons of water per day from Oyster Creek, which is screened, heated and mixed with biocides to protect plant piping before being discharged. The process destroys fish, fish larvae, plankton and other living organisms, and the heated water contributes to the growth of unhealthy algae blooms that dissolve oxygen levels in Barnegat Bay, making it difficult for aquatic life to survive. Some scientists also believe the water artificially warmed by Oyster Creek has contributed to the increased population of stinging sea nettle jellyfish in the bay.
The damage isn't only environmental. Far from it. The commercial and recreational uses of Barnegat Bay's natural resources contribute hundreds of millions of dollars to the regional economy. The bay is an asset that must be protected at all costs.
Exelon officials, who are expected to pack the hearing room Monday with busloads of Oyster Creek employees, will likely maintain, as they have in the past, that the expense of installing a cooling tower system will force them to shut down the plant. That's utter nonsense. So, too, is another argument they are sure to trot out: That the cost of the cooling towers will be passed on to consumers, resulting in a spike in electric rates. All generating companies in New Jersey get the same price per kilowatt hour of energy produced, a price set by the power plants that are the most expensive to run - natural gas.
Exelon, which has been the most profitable U.S. utility over the past two years and bought Oyster Creek for a song - $10 million - 10 years ago, has returned an estimated $1 billion in profits since then, according to an Environment New Jersey analysis of financial statements. Three years ago, when the state DEP seemed poised to require cooling towers at Oyster Creek, Exelon claimed it would cost $700 million to $800 million to construct them, effectively forcing it to close the plant. Independent estimates of the cost range from $50 million to $300 million. Amortized over 10 years, a cooling tower would not make a substantial dent in Exelon's handsome profits.
Last week, an Oyster Creek spokesman claimed that Smith's legislation was aimed at shutting the plant. If Exelon truly believes that, it proves two things: it lacks credibility on its cooling tower cost estimates and it fails to recognize its responsibility to safeguard and help restore the health of Barnegat Bay. Oyster Creek isn't the only contributor to the bay's problems. But it must be a part of the solution.
When Rowe testifies Monday, he may threaten to close the plant if the Legislature requires a cooling tower. If so, the six members of the Environment Committee, including Sen. Andrew Ciesla, R-Ocean, should call his bluff. Rowe should be told that if he wants to continue operating the nation's oldest nuclear power plant well into the 21st century, he needs to use the best available technology to minimize the damage it is doing to the environment. That means a cooling tower.
And he should be told in no uncertain terms that if Exelon isn't willing to reinvest a small percentage of its profits to protect the environment, the health of Barnegat Bay and the local economy, he and his plant are no longer welcome here.
Additional Facts
Oyster Creek isn't the only contributor to Barnegat Bay's problems. But it must be a part of the solution.
________________________________________