Your Turn

Time for a review of Oyster Creek’s safety

Michael J. Panter

Guest Column

An issue of critical importance to New Jersey residents’ health and safety will be considered at a public hearing of the Environment Committee of the New Jersey General Assembly at the civic plaza in Brick Township on Dec. 2. The meeting, which will begin at 7 p.m., will focus on the potential 20-year license extension of the Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station located in Lacey Township.

With all of Monmouth and Ocean counties encompassed in the 50-mile radius surrounding Oyster Creek, an accident at the facility could have a devastating impact on the health and safety of our families, as well as our environment and economy.

The last publicly disclosed study of projected casualties from a major radioactive release at Oyster Creek was presented to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) in 1981. When adjusted for population increases, it suggested that nearly 22,000 deaths would occur in the 12 months following such an event, with nearly 40,000 additional lives lost to cancer and other illnesses over the lives of those exposed.

We have a duty to conduct an exhaustive review of the risks posed by the continuing operation of Oyster Creek, and the adequacy of the plant’s safety measures.

In that review, we must be cognizant of the 451 full-time workers who would be affected by any changes at the plant. We must also consider any possible effects on the power supply, as well as the economic benefits Oyster Creek provides to Ocean County and the state.

Oyster Creek commenced operations in 1969, and is the oldest nuclear power plant operating in the United States. The facility is classified as a “boiling water reactor” that generates power by heating water through nuclear fission, which is created in a set of submerged, uranium-filled fuel rods. The resulting steam is then used to generate electricity.

Over time, plutonium and other by-products of the fission process collect in the fuel rods and decrease their efficiency. The waste contained in spent rods remains highly radioactive for hundreds of thousands of years, and proper storage is critical. To date, Oyster Creek has generated nearly 150 tons of nuclear waste, all of which is kept on site while the United States seeks to establish a national location for permanent storage.

The most pressing issues facing Oyster Creek are the possibility of an accident due to safety failures or a terrorist attack, and the feasibility of an effective evacuation of surrounding areas if such an event were to occur.

Oyster Creek recently completed an extensive security upgrade, including the addition of more paramilitary guards and updated weaponry. The plant also has new vehicle barriers and a new vehicle checkpoint, as well as miles of new fencing with razor wire to delay or prevent unauthorized entry.

While the potential for an attack is difficult to quantify, we do know that terrorists have considered nuclear plants in the United States as targets. Although we are not aware of specific threats against Oyster Creek, considering its proximity to Newark Airport and Route 9, and our status as the most densely populated state in the nation, we can not rule it out. We also know that exercises at Oyster Creek in 2001 revealed significant security lapses.

The risk of an accident at Oyster Creek is more discernable. In 1985, the NRC testified before Congress that there was a 45 percent chance of a reactor accident over a 20-year time period given 100 nuclear plants in operation (the U.S. has 103). Almost 20 years later, 27 plants have been closed for periods greater than one year due to major safety risks, though the NRC has never denied a relicensing application.

Oyster Creek’s own safety record is cause for serious concern. First, its design was discontinued due to safety flaws only four years after it came online. Second, it has been cited for more violations than all but seven of our nation’s nuclear plants, including a critical loss of water in its core during 1979 shortly after the meltdown occurred at Three Mile Island.

In 1997, the plant’s owners were cited by the NRC for having an inoperable emergency water pump due to excessive corrosion, two inoperable “control rod drive” pumps and insufficient emergency power, as well as radiation monitors that had been calibrated incorrectly.

Nine more violations were found by the NRC in 1998, including the failure of three of the plant’s five valves meant to depressurize the reactor in the event of an accident. Inspections in 2003 found that deteriorated power cables, which had not been inspected after similar incidents occurred in 1996 and 2001, had failed.

These are just a few of the topics we must address in our committee’s hearing on Dec. 2.

On Dec. 9 at 7 p.m., I invite all Monmouth County residents to an open meeting in the auditorium of Seabrook Village at 3000 Essex Road, Tinton Falls, where I will share information gathered by our committee and receive public input. I would also appreciate any questions or suggestions, which can be sent to me at AsmPanter@njleg.org, or by calling (732) 741-5599.

When our review is completed, I intend to offer a resolution urging Acting Gov. Richard Codey to use the full legal, regulatory and other resources at New Jersey’s disposal to support our state’s position on Oyster Creek’s relicensing. In this manner we will ensure that the safety and health of our families and environment are the NRC’s highest priorities.

Assemblyman Michael J. Panter (D-Monmouth/Mercer) is the vice chairman of the General Assembly’s Environment and Solid Waste Committee, and a board member of NJ/NY Clean Ocean And Shore Trust (COAST) Committee.