iPhone app iPad app Android phone app Android tablet app More

Oyster Creek Nuclear Power Plant, Oldest In U.S., Closing 10 Years Early

WAYNE PARRY and ANGELA DELLI SANTI   12/ 8/10 10:15 PM ET   AP

Nuke Plant

TRENTON, N.J. — Electricity company Exelon said Wednesday it will close the nation's oldest nuclear power plant in 2019 – 10 years earlier than planned – but will not have to build costly cooling towers for it.

The Chicago-based company said changing markets and upkeep costs for the Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station in the Forked River section of Lacey Township have caused its value to decline. The company issued a statement confirming the shutdown plans after The Associated Press reported them earlier in the day, citing two people with direct knowledge of them.

The aging plant, which went online in 1969, will not be required to build one or more cooling towers to replace its current technology, which draws 1.4 billion gallons of water a day from Barnegat Bay, killing billions of aquatic creatures each year.

The plant, 60 miles east of Philadelphia and 75 miles south of New York City, "faces a unique set of economic conditions and changing environmental regulations that make ending operations in 2019 the best option for the company, employees and shareholders," Exelon Corp. president Chris Crane said.

He said low market prices and demand and the plant's need for continuing large capital expenditures have reduced its value.

"Also, potential additional environmental compliance costs based on evolving water cooling regulatory requirements – at both the federal and state government levels – created significant regulatory and economic uncertainty," Crane said.

Because Exelon agreed to speed up the plant's shutdown, Crane said, New Jersey officials backed off their demand that it build one or more cooling towers to replace the current system of sucking water from the bay into the plant and discharging it. The state says that process kills billions of shrimp and tens of thousands of fish, crabs and clams each year, and environmentalists have long wanted Oyster Creek to switch to cooling towers.

Exelon had balked at the state's insistence on cooling towers, saying they are prohibitively costly, and said it would shutter the plant rather than build them.

The company says the $800 million it would cost to build the towers is more than the plant is worth, and it asked the state to withdraw its demand last January.

But environmentalists say the job could be done for about $200 million.

No specific shutdown date in 2019 has been set.

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission granted the Oyster Creek station a new 20-year license in April 2009, rejecting concerns by opponents centered on corrosion to a metal enclosure that keeps superheated radioactive steam within a containment building.

Exelon had applied a strong coating material to the liner and removed a sand bed at the base of the reactor that was found to hold moisture that caused the corrosion.

Over the past year, the plant has been cleaning up the remnants of a leak of radioactive tritium from underground pipes that has since made its way to a major underground water source, although no wells or drinking water supplies have been tainted.

Tritium occurs naturally in the environment at very low levels and may be released as steam from nuclear reactors. It also can leak into soil and groundwater.

The leaks have prompted the NRC to order its staff to look for better ways to detect and prevent leaks in buried pipes at all U.S. nuclear power plants.

Oyster Creek's boiling-water reactor is considered obsolete by today's standards. But the plant generates enough electricity to power 600,000 homes a year and provides 9 percent of New Jersey's electricity.

Oyster Creek went online Dec. 1, 1969, the same day as the Nine Mile Point Nuclear Generating Station near Oswego, N.Y. But Oyster Creek's original license was granted first, technically making it the oldest of the nation's 104 commercial nuclear reactors that are still operating.

It would have been 60 years old had it remained open until the end of its current license.

Lacey Township Committeeman Brian Reid, an opponent of the cooling towers proposal, said it was "a shame" that the plant would be shutting early.

"Ten years earlier? That really doesn't surprise me," Reid said. "They would have had to spend a lot of money on those towers, and business is business."

On Thursday, the administration of Gov. Chris Christie was to reveal plans to protect the health of Barnegat Bay, including an endorsement of reduced nitrogen amounts in fertilizer sold in New Jersey and restrictions on how it can be applied and a program to fund the purchase of environmentally sensitive areas near the bay. The proposal also would include rules requiring post-construction restoration of soil to prevent water from running off into waterways.

Tom Fote, commissioner of the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission, called the plan "a step in the right direction." He applauded the fertilizer and soil compaction bills but said he'd hoped the plant would be required to build cooling towers.

Sierra Club chapter director Jeff Tittel scoffed at the Oyster Creek deal, saying Exelon "gets to operate the plant for 10 years, then walk away with a pile of cash at the expense of the bay."

___

Associated Press writer Bruce Shipkowski in Trenton contributed

FOLLOW HUFFPOST GREEN

TRENTON, N.J. — Electricity company Exelon said Wednesday it will close the nation's oldest nuclear power plant in 2019 – 10 years earlier than planned – but will not have to build c...
TRENTON, N.J. — Electricity company Exelon said Wednesday it will close the nation's oldest nuclear power plant in 2019 – 10 years earlier than planned – but will not have to build c...
Filed by Zoe Triska  | 
 
 
  • Comments
  • 195
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3  Next ›  Last »  (3 total)
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Rich Phitzwell
07:21 PM on 12/13/2010
On one side im sad that another nuke is going, but the new designs out there are so much more efficient and can reuse fuel that at the time this plant was designed could not.

If we really cared we would have a mix of nuke, vast rooftop solar and wind, and natural gas and eliminate all coal production and plants. If your worried about the radioactive elements, demand no coal as they release more radiation into the environment watt for watt than nuclear plants http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=coal-ash-is-more-radioactive-than-nuclear-waste and new nuke designs have multiple loop cooling that doesn't release the hot water back into the river or ocean. Heck France is in the 80% powered by nuke and have been for decades.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Bryan Elliott
10:29 PM on 12/12/2010
I love the spin on this.

The actual story is that Oyster Creek is being closed down because, despite operating its 41 year lifetime without cooling towers, and having little measurable effect on the environment (except, you know, excluding two coal plants from its electrical shadow), the NJ government decided to concern troll over water temperature and entrainment. Exelon can't make a profit in an environment of strong-arming, so they're taking their toys and leaving.

It's not even being closed "early"; the plant's original operating lifetime was 40 years; in 2000, they cleaned up a minor tritium leak and got a licensing extension of 20 years.

Anyway, enjoy the coal plants that move in to replace Oyster Creek*, New Jersey; you earned them.

* Coal plants that, mark my words, will not have cooling towers either.
Genders
Love, Tolerance, Enlightenment
07:20 PM on 12/13/2010
No, they will replace that energy with solar wind and waste bio fuels.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Joffan
Time is an illusion. Lunchtime doubly so.
10:18 PM on 12/13/2010
Perhaps for some of it. But for any wind and solar built, my bet is that more than twice as much fossil (gas) generation gets built. And I'm afraid I don't quite understand what "waste bio fuels" means - landfill methane?
07:34 PM on 01/25/2011
But I doubt very much if there will be any ADDITIONAL renewable project that will come into production as a result of Oyster Creek closing in 2019.
Genders
Love, Tolerance, Enlightenment
02:02 PM on 12/14/2010
Waste bio fuels include Bio Char and FT primarily. Instead of dumping our organic wastes, we can relatively simply bio char them into energy, bio fuels and carbon negative fertilizer. No other technology is as carbon negative. Everything that we grow, we eventually throw out. Waste Bio Char saves land, cuts pollution and provides the backup solar and wind need.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
jzannoni
09:04 PM on 12/12/2010
this plant was put into operation in 1969. old design, small output lots of equipment and safety issues, tritium leak is the tip of the iceberg here. corzine stated he was opposed to the 20 year operating extension. He offered 7 years and no cooling towers. They do the deal. Exelon gets the NRC to approve a 20 year extension. The day Corzine left office he issued a requirement for Exelon to build the cooling towers. The come out now and say its too expensive so they will only operate the plant for 10 years and not build the towers. They get 200 million in profit for ten years, dont build the towers and decide when to shut it down. They delay the decommissioning cost of 600 million and the cost to build a replacement plant billions and who kows how many years. The Bay is screwed, the state is screwed, im glad i dont live near that place.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Joffan
Time is an illusion. Lunchtime doubly so.
04:36 PM on 12/13/2010
You seem a little confused, jz. Exelon has no cost associated with building a replacement plant. That's for whoever decides - as a separate project - that building an electrical generator is a worthwhile business venture, if anyone does. And the decommissioing fund for Oyster Creek is in place - it makes little difference to Exelon when it gets used.

And, of course, you are being simply unreasonable in objecting to a business earning a profit by generating $3billion worth of electricity over ten years. That electricity does not appear spontaneously.

However I agree that the region is screwed - if such lopsided government intervention continues. No thought appears to have been taken of the positive aspects of the plant, or the negative implications to other businesses of arbitrary rule-making like this.
02:02 PM on 12/12/2010
A planned shut down is better than an unplanned accident !
Genders
Love, Tolerance, Enlightenment
05:21 PM on 12/10/2010
Good, these nuke plants are all being run at maximum power way past their original design lifetimes. When these reactor have been decommissioned, alarming weakness have been found, contrary to the myth you can inspect everything in a reactor. Nukes suffer from 4 critical unsolved problems: proliferation, terrorism, accidents and waste.

rooftop solar offshore wind and waste bio fuels are already the cheapest source of energy for million of Americans and billions of people around the world...and they are getting cheaper all the time.
02:51 AM on 12/11/2010
Proliferation: Meaningless except for export markets to non nuclear weapons states. And no one ever uses power reactors to make weapons material because its incredibly cost inefficient to use a multibillion dollar piece of capital. Oyster Creek doesn't mean a thing to proliferation arguments, nor do most power reactors in the world.

Terrorism: Seriously? They are hard targets that produce little collateral damage even if you could damage them. Compared to say, natural gas terminals, chemical plants, hydroelectric dams, or skyscrapers.

Accidents: When OSHA statistics have nuclear power plants safer than office work, seriously?

Waste: several tens of tonnes per GW year that you can store in a cask in a parking spot is hardly a concern. It sits there, doing nothing, taking up hardly any room. Its only notable because nuclear power actually internalizes its own waste cost unlike fossil fuels that dump it directly into the environment.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
alvdh1
11:12 AM on 12/11/2010
Here is a a list of Dezakins favorite words.

Dismiss
Discredit
Meaningless
Seriously
Minimize
Distort
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Joffan
Time is an illusion. Lunchtime doubly so.
04:45 PM on 12/13/2010
Genders, do you have some examples of the alarming weaknesses you say have been found in the process of decommissioning plants that (presumably, given your argument) were not known during plant operation? I'd like to review them, and discuss if we can manage that.
11:36 AM on 12/10/2010
Exelon would run the plant as long as it is profitable and was compliant with NRC regulations. A power plant has no expiration date. The original 40 year license was based on financial planning not any technical evaluation of aging.
What changed? Exelon must have determined that New Jersey was going to require closed loop cooling (i.e. cooling towers) which would be an 800 million investment. With this new requirement the plant is no longer profitable. Plain and simple.
What effect will this have? Electricity rates will go up. That’s how the laws of supply and demand work. You reduce supply prices go up. Who are the biggest losers? NJ power consumers and the local communities that lose high paying jobs and tax base.
Exelon is in the cat bird’s seat. They have a decommissioning fund and can sit on the plant for 20 years with a skeleton crew and basically do nothing. They’ll replace the 600 MW of lost powerwith higher priced electricity and just raise the rates. No problem for them.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Joffan
Time is an illusion. Lunchtime doubly so.
09:56 AM on 12/11/2010
Exelon won't have to do a damned thing about replacement power. They'll close the plant and close their supply contract at the same time. Otherwise, you are completely correct. We shall see whether this rule on cooling is actually applied fairly across all thermal technologies - if it is, it will be a supply disaster for NJ, and if not, I imagine Exelon will appeal the ruling.
08:37 AM on 12/10/2010
"the plant has been cleaning up the remnants of a leak of radioactive tritium"
"Tritium occurs naturally in the environment at very low levels"
The difference here being radioactive tritium and tritium. They always make it sound like less when it is more.
11:18 AM on 12/10/2010
All tritium is radioactive. It beta-decays to helium-3 over a radioisotope half-life of about 12 years, with a biological half-life of approximately one to two weeks as tritiated water.
05:33 PM on 12/20/2010
Thanks for the info. Do they not give Iodine tablets to fill the thyroid with iodine so it can not be filled with radioactive iodine. and what is a noble gas and what is a contaminated noble gas. there are noble gasses produced inside the reactor that are "burped" out into the atmosphere when they open the can at the start of a refuel at all nuke plants. most noble gasses are contaminated when released. A few workers had been contaminated with radio active iodine at TMI, they set off PCMs for a week or two and had to be escorted by the machines by the guards to be able to get into the plant for work. after years of being told that everything is OK and not to worry I think we had and still have the wool pulled over our eyes. But our only protector, The NRC, is a good thing and all that saves us all from the corporate nuke lovers from killing us all from radiation contamination.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Joffan
Time is an illusion. Lunchtime doubly so.
09:58 AM on 12/11/2010
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tritium

The only tritium there is. every bit of it exactly as radioactive as every other bit.
08:15 AM on 12/10/2010
Nuclear power is not the cheap panacea it it portrayed to be. Construction costs, decontamination costs, spent fuel transportation and storage....the dollars per kilowatt isn't there to justify they risk. Just wait until we have an attempted terrorist strike against one of these unprotected site. The cost will skyrocket.
05:06 PM on 12/10/2010
"unprotected sites"? Are you kidding? There are few places in the world more protected than a nuclear plant.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Michael Mann
Nuclear Educator
08:42 AM on 12/12/2010
@Madison Lib Nuclear power is also not the scary expensive risk it's portrayed as being. Even with decommissioning costs included (which they are) nuclear power plants are cost competative, look at the EIA numbers. Nuclear power plants are the only form of energy production where almost all costs are internalized not paid by bystanders in the form of lung disease and global warming.
Security is tight at all US nuclear power plants, the same cannot be said for the rest of America's industrial complex. (most of which is more dangerous as well as more vulnerable) There has never been a US nuclear power accident resulting in injury to the public, "Natural gas" on the other hand has had several fatalities just this year.
http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf02.html
http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/epa/epa_sum.html
http://www.discovery.com/area/skinnyon/skinnyon970212/skinny1.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-ropeik/nuclear-power-ambivalence_b_775563.html
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mEYglvzyito&feature=player_embedded
http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf02.html
photo
FirstSpeaker
Emergency nurse. Tu ne cede malis....
06:40 AM on 12/10/2010
This is a step in the wrong direction. Nuclear is really the only option open to us.
07:07 AM on 12/10/2010
Boiling Water Reactors from the 1960s are absolutely not the only option open to us...
08:16 AM on 12/10/2010
At one point in your life, your first girlfriend was the only option open to you, too. I bet you didn't marry her.
04:32 AM on 12/10/2010
I applaud the company for announcing so early. Workers have time to plan. Morality in business? Nice thing to see.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
KriTiKiT
Says"play nice"
04:16 AM on 12/10/2010
we should rename New Jersey, New Chernobyl.
02:55 AM on 12/11/2010
Yeah, that's an intelligent comment. Because a light water reactor operating according to design is exactly like a graphite moderated RBMK with a positive void coefficient without any containment dome that goes on a criticality excursion that vaporizes a tenth of the core.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Joffan
Time is an illusion. Lunchtime doubly so.
10:01 AM on 12/11/2010
Watch out for the sarcasm dezakin. Some people might think you're serious. :-)
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
KriTiKiT
Says"play nice"
08:19 PM on 12/13/2010
oh yeah like Indian Point.... :P
photo
planetjeffy
On the other hand, you have different fingers.
04:10 AM on 12/10/2010
Nuclear power is very clean

until it's not.
04:57 AM on 12/10/2010
With current technology, nuclear is cleaner and safer than coal or shale gas and more sustainable than petroleum or annual crop biofuels, but it does carry greater risks than solar, wind, or advanced biofuels from perennial crops, microalgae, or organic wastes.

The greatest liability with nuclear power is the decommissioning of first-generation reactors such as this one which were not built with modern technology. Waste is a problem, but it's an overstated problem, and it can be mostly solved in the long-run with advanced waste reprocessing reactors.

One of the defining characteristics of a society is what they choose to care about out versus what they choose to ignore. We're getting better about not ignoring the enormous problems with coal-fired electric generation, but nuclear power still suffers from "concern trolls" that distort the undeniable need for appropriate caution with outdated information and baseless hysteria.

Like the folks who claimed that sonic booms from Concorde would cause miscarriages. There's a portion of this debate that is completely appropriate caution, and there's a portion of this debate that is absurd technophobia that future generations will probably find quite amusing.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
Russ Kirk
Don't confuse excess with success.
06:40 AM on 12/10/2010
Sounds reasonable, should we build more, or stay with coal?
07:43 AM on 12/10/2010
Waste Reprocessing reactors don't solve the waste problem they create longer lasting more dangerous waste. Waste that last millions of years rather then a few decades. They have produced enough that France is shipping their waste outside the country since the French do not have the storage facilities. The mob in Europe has been found to ship and dump radioactive waste.

The French nuclear reactors are turned off on the weekends and cannot handle peak demand nor do most nuclear reactors. Coal and natural gas power plants have to handle the peak demand times.
02:56 AM on 12/11/2010
Tautologies are very clever, until they aren't.
photo
planetjeffy
On the other hand, you have different fingers.
05:40 PM on 12/11/2010
needless repetition is often unneeded.

but it sure got the discussion going...
Genders
Love, Tolerance, Enlightenment
06:58 PM on 12/13/2010
So you don't understand the sound of one hand clapping either. Nukes are the dirtiest energy every created. bar none.
02:34 AM on 12/10/2010
Boiling Water Reactors (BWRs) like this one have terrible thermal efficiency, first because the reactor core runs at a relatively low temperature limited by the boiling point of water at ambient pressure, and second because the cooling loop is "powered" by the phase change from liquid to vapor, requiring a condensing heat exchanger on the other side of the loop to remove the large latent heat of vaporization from the primary water before returning it to the reactor core.

All of that waste heat has to be removed at the condensing heat exchanger by a very high flow rate of secondary cooling water running at a relatively low temperature rise to facilitate the condensation. That means they have to draw humongous amounts of bay water for their once-through cooling system, and it also means that the flow rate required for a cooling tower system would be relatively high to maintain that low temperature rise across the condenser.

While consuming vastly less water than once-through, the cooling towers would be relatively large and expensive compared to typical cooling towers for the amount of heat they need to reject.

It's just a very poor, obsolete type of reactor that speaks more to the problems of decommissioning our existing nuclear power capacity than to the potential benefits or problems with building a new generation of modern nuclear power facilities. These two issue are both very important debates but should not be conflated.
07:53 AM on 12/10/2010
"Boiling Water Reactors (BWRs) like this one have terrible thermal efficiency­, first because the reactor core runs at a relatively low temperatur­e limited by the boiling point of water at ambient pressure". No, in fact, BWR reactors run at around 900 to 1100 pounds per square inch and 500 to 600 degrees F when at full power output.

"because the cooling loop is "powered" by the phase change from liquid to vapor, requiring a condensing heat exchanger on the other side of the loop to remove the large latent heat of vaporizati­on from the primary water before returning it to the reactor core". Well, this is true of all nuclear plants, and coal and combined cycle gas plants for that mattter. All steam electric plants require a condenser.
oilfield
large employer per obamacare
02:08 AM on 12/10/2010
sounds like power will be on the rise soon....
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
aligatorhardt
Cut on the bias
10:48 PM on 12/09/2010
Sounds like this poorly designed old plant should be shut down sooner. The water use and fish destruction is much more than I would have expected. Obviously nuclear power is too expensive to compete when just the expense of cooling towers make the plant unprofitable. Typical that the owners would try to blackmail the EPA into accepting this destructive water use.  Were these plants designed to run for 6o years? I don't think so, but many old nuclear plants are being pushed to run far beyond what they were designed for. This is a recipe for disaster. Check www.ucsusa.org for information on tritium leaks and other problems with aging nuclear power plants and realize that owners will not be held accountable for disasters as taxpayers are expected to absorb losses of life and property.