B
bach2yoga
Guest
FUTURE OF OYSTER CREEK POWERS LOCAL DEBATE
Date: 22 Dec 2003
From: Norm Cohen {ncohen12@comcast.net}
NUCLEAR LICENSE DEADLINE NEARS
By Nicholas Clunn, Asbury Park Press Manahawkin Bureau, 12/21/03
Lacey - With 2003 coming to a close, the Oyster Creek nuclear power
plant is about enter a critical period in its 34-year history.
The company that runs the 650-megawatt reactor on a barren stretch of
Route 9 has until April to decide whether it wants the plant to apply
to continue generating power through 2029, another 20 years beyond
when its current license expires, in 2009.
A decommissioned plant would mean that Ocean County would lose a
major employer. Due to the specialized nature of their jobs, most of
the plant's 440 workers, many of whom live in towns around the plant,
would leave to seek employment at other reactors if their jobs here
were eliminated.
Also at stake is money that makes up about a quarter of Lacey's
budget, an annual $11.5 million state subsidy that the town gets
because it has a power plant. Township officials fear state
legislators could take this money away if the plant closes, a decision
that, at worst, would increase the municipal portion of the tax rate
by about 137 percent, according to township figures.
Others would see Oyster Creek's closure as a good thing. Currently,
radioactive waste is stored at the site. But officials believe that in
six years the waste will begin being transported from Lacey through
Ocean County neighborhoods on its way to a dump that is expected to
open in Nevada. Continued operation would mean more waste that would
need to be disposed.
Opponents of extended generation also warn that the plant is a likely
aerial target for terrorists. The economic fallout, they say, is a
secondary concern to the radiological kind that could result from such
an attack.
OPINIONS DIFFER
"I understand the principle of how the crow flies, and I know how the
effects of Chernobyl reached Poland," said Laura Cayford, who is
concerned about the plant, even though she lives 30 miles away in
Asbury Park.
Although closer to the plant, Anne Gudzak, a township resident and
owner of a nursery school here, feels safe about its presence. She
said she trusts officials who decide matters about the plant's safety
and wouldn't mind if the plant's life were extended.
"I don't think we should be overly concerned," she said. "I wouldn't
be living here for 35 years if I thought there would be any serious
danger."
As of Friday, Oyster Creek's owner, AmerGen Energy, had given no
indication publicly or to federal licensing officials about its plans.
Nonetheless, there is strong evidence to indicate that if AmerGen
does apply for an extension, it will be successful.
The federal agency overseeing the country's 103 reactors, the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission, has yet to deny a license renewal, said Neil
Sheehan, an agency spokesman.
"Some NRC officials expect that all of the plants at one point or
another will seek relicensing renewal," he said.
The agency had approved license renewals for 17 reactors on nine
sites as of Friday. The agency is now considering 14 renewal
applications and expects about 24 more within the next two years.
If AmerGen applies for an extension, the NRC would require it to
closely evaluate how the plant's aging over the next 20 years would
affect Oyster Creek and how it could manage those effects. AmerGen
would also have to evaluate potential environmental impacts over an
extended period of operation.
THE PRICE OF APPLYING
Applying for an extension is expensive. AmerGen spent a total of
between $8 million and $10 million applying to extend the life of two
reactors near Lancaster, Pa., Sheehan said.
The NRC would then review the application, verifying the company's
evaluations through inspections and other means. The process usually
takes about two years, with the public having several opportunities to
comment along the way.
The Oyster Creek facility has had recent success with federally run
safety drills and inspections.
Following safety drills at Oyster Creek in September, federal
emergency management officials said workers at the plant and first
responders in the towns around it are prepared to evacuate residents
in case of a radiological emergency, based on their performance.
The agency's findings continued the plant's "record of success," said
agency Regional Assistance Committee Chairman Robert F. Reynolds
following the drills.
These drills, coupled with regular maintenance, are performed, in
part, to ensure that plants will operate safely through a 20-year
license extension.
Also, nuclear power has at least some friends in the federal
government. The energy bill that was recently defeated in the U.S.
Senate would have appropriated money for new plant construction and
atomic energy research. Lawmakers cited other reasons, not the nuclear
power provisions, when voting against the bill, and Republican
lawmakers are expected to reintroduce it next year.
One measure that was part of that bill that could have had a direct
effect on Oyster Creek was one that would have authorized funding over
the next five fiscal years for maintaining, upgrading and modifying
existing plants. About $2.8 billion could have been authorized for
this purpose and other nuclear energy research.
MEETING WITH SUCCESS
Exelon, the parent company of Oyster Creek's owner, Amer-Gen, didn't
need this financial incentive to pursue relicensure of six of its
plants. The Chicago-based company has so far submitted the second-
highest number of relicensing applications in the country.
Two Exelon plants on one Pennsylvania site have already had licenses
renewed. The NRC in May extended operation at Peach Bottom 2 and 3 in
Lancaster.
It made financial sense to keep the plants open, said Exelon
spokesman David Simon.
"The plants were operating well, and we wanted to continue generating
electricity," he said.
Opponents of nuclear power, however, argue that such power plants
should close because reactors are targets for terrorists and producers
of radioactive waste.
In the debate surrounding whether Oyster Creek should continue
operating, lobby groups New Jersey Public Interest and Research Group,
or NJPIRG, and Jersey Shore Nuclear Watch have been the ones talking
the most about these potential dangers.
Whether AmerGen applies for a license extension or decides to shut
down the reactor, "we definitely have plans to scrutinize every step
of the process to make sure public safety will be taken into account,"
said NJPIRG energy advocate Emily Rusch.
Despite NJPIRG's concern, Jack Demarco, who has a clear view of
Oyster Creek's buildings from his bakery's parking lot on Route 9,
isn't worried much about his safety. He trusts the people running the
plant.
"It's the thing of the future, nuclear power," he said. "There is
nothing wrong with it."
DIRE PREDICTIONS
If plant opponents prevail, and Oyster Creek closes, a dramatic
economic downturn is expected here and in towns around the plant, say
economists and township officials.
The ripple-effect from lost jobs would have the most detrimental
effect, said Donald M. Scarry, an economist at New Jersey Economics in
Mount Laurel. The salaries of people working at the plant would be
withdrawn from the local economy, money that had been spent in
businesses around the plant.
"It would affect at least the county and probably more than that.
Just think of the number of butchers, bakers and candle-stick makers
that would be affected," Scarry said.
When plants close, workers typically leave quickly to find positions
at other nuclear sites, said Sheehan of the NRC.
"They have specific skills, and typically they will find jobs at
other operating reactors," he said.
Some workers would stay on for the long-term. Security personnel, for
example, would be needed to guard the nuclear waste stored here. These
workers would be joined temporarily by special crews brought in to
close the plant, Sheehan said.
EFFECT ON TAXES
Township officials also are worried that, if Oyster Creek closes,
state lawmakers would take away Lacey's special subsidy for having a
power plant.
Although state law guarantees this subsidy for towns with plants,
closed or open, township officials fear lawmakers would change the
law. In Lacey's case, such a move would cut $11.5 million from its
annual budget. This year's budget is about $44 million, said Township
Tax Collector Joseph Regatts.
To compensate for such a loss, the township would consider raising
taxes. If the total difference was raised this way - which would be a
"remote possibility" - taxpayers would see a 26-cent jump in the
municipal portion of their tax rate, Regatts said. For the owner of a
home assessed at the township average - $126,436 - that would
translate into an additional $328 a year in taxes.
Victor Szaranowski said his elderly mother would have a difficult
time dealing with significantly higher taxes. He's from Edison, but
drives here often to look after her.
"She's 94 years old," he said. "She uses what Social Security money
she can get."
There's little worry about losing Oyster Creek as a ratable. If the
reactor is turned off, AmerGen would still have to keep the facility
open since it will contain spent fuel, Regatts said. Oyster Creek paid
the town $1.6 million in property taxes this year, according to
township figures.
Whether the plant closes in five years or stays open for another 25,
Georgia Sabarese, a long-time resident here, said her town and the
people here will survive.
She sees the commercial development here - the planned Wal-Mart and
Home Depot stores - as Lacey's saving grace if the reactor were to go
cold.
"We wouldn't be in trouble, not with the influx we have right now,"
she said. "Look at all the big stores coming in."
* * *
Nicholas Clunn: (609) 978-4597 or nclunn@app.com
Copyright (c) 1997-2003 IN Jersey.
Date: 22 Dec 2003
From: Norm Cohen {ncohen12@comcast.net}
NUCLEAR LICENSE DEADLINE NEARS
By Nicholas Clunn, Asbury Park Press Manahawkin Bureau, 12/21/03
Lacey - With 2003 coming to a close, the Oyster Creek nuclear power
plant is about enter a critical period in its 34-year history.
The company that runs the 650-megawatt reactor on a barren stretch of
Route 9 has until April to decide whether it wants the plant to apply
to continue generating power through 2029, another 20 years beyond
when its current license expires, in 2009.
A decommissioned plant would mean that Ocean County would lose a
major employer. Due to the specialized nature of their jobs, most of
the plant's 440 workers, many of whom live in towns around the plant,
would leave to seek employment at other reactors if their jobs here
were eliminated.
Also at stake is money that makes up about a quarter of Lacey's
budget, an annual $11.5 million state subsidy that the town gets
because it has a power plant. Township officials fear state
legislators could take this money away if the plant closes, a decision
that, at worst, would increase the municipal portion of the tax rate
by about 137 percent, according to township figures.
Others would see Oyster Creek's closure as a good thing. Currently,
radioactive waste is stored at the site. But officials believe that in
six years the waste will begin being transported from Lacey through
Ocean County neighborhoods on its way to a dump that is expected to
open in Nevada. Continued operation would mean more waste that would
need to be disposed.
Opponents of extended generation also warn that the plant is a likely
aerial target for terrorists. The economic fallout, they say, is a
secondary concern to the radiological kind that could result from such
an attack.
OPINIONS DIFFER
"I understand the principle of how the crow flies, and I know how the
effects of Chernobyl reached Poland," said Laura Cayford, who is
concerned about the plant, even though she lives 30 miles away in
Asbury Park.
Although closer to the plant, Anne Gudzak, a township resident and
owner of a nursery school here, feels safe about its presence. She
said she trusts officials who decide matters about the plant's safety
and wouldn't mind if the plant's life were extended.
"I don't think we should be overly concerned," she said. "I wouldn't
be living here for 35 years if I thought there would be any serious
danger."
As of Friday, Oyster Creek's owner, AmerGen Energy, had given no
indication publicly or to federal licensing officials about its plans.
Nonetheless, there is strong evidence to indicate that if AmerGen
does apply for an extension, it will be successful.
The federal agency overseeing the country's 103 reactors, the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission, has yet to deny a license renewal, said Neil
Sheehan, an agency spokesman.
"Some NRC officials expect that all of the plants at one point or
another will seek relicensing renewal," he said.
The agency had approved license renewals for 17 reactors on nine
sites as of Friday. The agency is now considering 14 renewal
applications and expects about 24 more within the next two years.
If AmerGen applies for an extension, the NRC would require it to
closely evaluate how the plant's aging over the next 20 years would
affect Oyster Creek and how it could manage those effects. AmerGen
would also have to evaluate potential environmental impacts over an
extended period of operation.
THE PRICE OF APPLYING
Applying for an extension is expensive. AmerGen spent a total of
between $8 million and $10 million applying to extend the life of two
reactors near Lancaster, Pa., Sheehan said.
The NRC would then review the application, verifying the company's
evaluations through inspections and other means. The process usually
takes about two years, with the public having several opportunities to
comment along the way.
The Oyster Creek facility has had recent success with federally run
safety drills and inspections.
Following safety drills at Oyster Creek in September, federal
emergency management officials said workers at the plant and first
responders in the towns around it are prepared to evacuate residents
in case of a radiological emergency, based on their performance.
The agency's findings continued the plant's "record of success," said
agency Regional Assistance Committee Chairman Robert F. Reynolds
following the drills.
These drills, coupled with regular maintenance, are performed, in
part, to ensure that plants will operate safely through a 20-year
license extension.
Also, nuclear power has at least some friends in the federal
government. The energy bill that was recently defeated in the U.S.
Senate would have appropriated money for new plant construction and
atomic energy research. Lawmakers cited other reasons, not the nuclear
power provisions, when voting against the bill, and Republican
lawmakers are expected to reintroduce it next year.
One measure that was part of that bill that could have had a direct
effect on Oyster Creek was one that would have authorized funding over
the next five fiscal years for maintaining, upgrading and modifying
existing plants. About $2.8 billion could have been authorized for
this purpose and other nuclear energy research.
MEETING WITH SUCCESS
Exelon, the parent company of Oyster Creek's owner, Amer-Gen, didn't
need this financial incentive to pursue relicensure of six of its
plants. The Chicago-based company has so far submitted the second-
highest number of relicensing applications in the country.
Two Exelon plants on one Pennsylvania site have already had licenses
renewed. The NRC in May extended operation at Peach Bottom 2 and 3 in
Lancaster.
It made financial sense to keep the plants open, said Exelon
spokesman David Simon.
"The plants were operating well, and we wanted to continue generating
electricity," he said.
Opponents of nuclear power, however, argue that such power plants
should close because reactors are targets for terrorists and producers
of radioactive waste.
In the debate surrounding whether Oyster Creek should continue
operating, lobby groups New Jersey Public Interest and Research Group,
or NJPIRG, and Jersey Shore Nuclear Watch have been the ones talking
the most about these potential dangers.
Whether AmerGen applies for a license extension or decides to shut
down the reactor, "we definitely have plans to scrutinize every step
of the process to make sure public safety will be taken into account,"
said NJPIRG energy advocate Emily Rusch.
Despite NJPIRG's concern, Jack Demarco, who has a clear view of
Oyster Creek's buildings from his bakery's parking lot on Route 9,
isn't worried much about his safety. He trusts the people running the
plant.
"It's the thing of the future, nuclear power," he said. "There is
nothing wrong with it."
DIRE PREDICTIONS
If plant opponents prevail, and Oyster Creek closes, a dramatic
economic downturn is expected here and in towns around the plant, say
economists and township officials.
The ripple-effect from lost jobs would have the most detrimental
effect, said Donald M. Scarry, an economist at New Jersey Economics in
Mount Laurel. The salaries of people working at the plant would be
withdrawn from the local economy, money that had been spent in
businesses around the plant.
"It would affect at least the county and probably more than that.
Just think of the number of butchers, bakers and candle-stick makers
that would be affected," Scarry said.
When plants close, workers typically leave quickly to find positions
at other nuclear sites, said Sheehan of the NRC.
"They have specific skills, and typically they will find jobs at
other operating reactors," he said.
Some workers would stay on for the long-term. Security personnel, for
example, would be needed to guard the nuclear waste stored here. These
workers would be joined temporarily by special crews brought in to
close the plant, Sheehan said.
EFFECT ON TAXES
Township officials also are worried that, if Oyster Creek closes,
state lawmakers would take away Lacey's special subsidy for having a
power plant.
Although state law guarantees this subsidy for towns with plants,
closed or open, township officials fear lawmakers would change the
law. In Lacey's case, such a move would cut $11.5 million from its
annual budget. This year's budget is about $44 million, said Township
Tax Collector Joseph Regatts.
To compensate for such a loss, the township would consider raising
taxes. If the total difference was raised this way - which would be a
"remote possibility" - taxpayers would see a 26-cent jump in the
municipal portion of their tax rate, Regatts said. For the owner of a
home assessed at the township average - $126,436 - that would
translate into an additional $328 a year in taxes.
Victor Szaranowski said his elderly mother would have a difficult
time dealing with significantly higher taxes. He's from Edison, but
drives here often to look after her.
"She's 94 years old," he said. "She uses what Social Security money
she can get."
There's little worry about losing Oyster Creek as a ratable. If the
reactor is turned off, AmerGen would still have to keep the facility
open since it will contain spent fuel, Regatts said. Oyster Creek paid
the town $1.6 million in property taxes this year, according to
township figures.
Whether the plant closes in five years or stays open for another 25,
Georgia Sabarese, a long-time resident here, said her town and the
people here will survive.
She sees the commercial development here - the planned Wal-Mart and
Home Depot stores - as Lacey's saving grace if the reactor were to go
cold.
"We wouldn't be in trouble, not with the influx we have right now,"
she said. "Look at all the big stores coming in."
* * *
Nicholas Clunn: (609) 978-4597 or nclunn@app.com
Copyright (c) 1997-2003 IN Jersey.
