Environmental Impact Statement Scoping Process for Calvert Cliffs-3.
Join Chesapeake Safe Energy Coalition at Public Meeting:
March 19, afternoon and evening
Submit Written Comments by April 4
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is required by law to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) describing the real and potential impacts that could be caused by Constellation Energy/Unistar's proposed Calvert Cliffs-3 reactor. The EIS scoping process is an opportunity to demand that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission fully consider in its EIS any and all possible environmental impacts of the proposed Calvert Cliffs-3 reactor. These include alternatives to building the reactor, a cost-benefit analysis, safety and radioactive waste issues, emergency planning, traffic, noise and construction, and more.
A public meeting on the EIS scoping process will be held at the Holiday Inn, 155 Holiday Drive, Solomons, MD, on March 19 from 1-4 pm and 7-10 pm. Join members of the Chesapeake Safe Energy Coalition there and show your opposition to a new reactor in Maryland!
Written comments on the EIS scoping are due April 4, and can be submitted either by mail to the Chief, Rules and Directives Branch, Division of Administrative Services, Office of Administration, Mailstop T-6D59, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, via e-mail at CalvertCliffs.COLAEIS@nrc.gov, or hand-delivered to the NRC at 11545 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Md., between 7:30 a.m. and 4:15 p.m. on federal workdays. You can use the same NRC e-mail address to sign up to speak at the EIS hearing on March 19.
Talking Points for Calvert Cliffs-3 Environmental Impact Statement Scoping Process
These are among the issues that should be included in the EIS. Feel free to use/expand upon these in preparing either oral or written comments:
Alternatives
The EIS should fully consider alternatives to Calvert Cliffs-3, including but not limited to:
*use of renewable energy to meet electricity demand
*use of energy efficiency to reduce electricity demand, including various and aggressive energy efficiency program scenarios
*use of a combination of renewable energy and energy efficiency to meet electricity demand
*the "no action" alternative
Cost-Benefit Analysis
*The EIS should examine the Cost/Benefits of Calvert Cliffs-3 using a process that would account for differing construction cost estimates for the facility. For example, in published reports Constellation Energy has suggested construction costs at around $4-5 billion. However, a similar EPR reactor being built now in Finland is 50% over-budget after only 3 years construction and is now projected to cost around $6.5 billion or more. Moody's Investor Services predicts construction costs for new reactors to be $5,000-$6,000/kw, which for Calvert Cliffs-3 would be in the $8 to $9.5 Billion range. In filings with the Florida Public Service Commission, Florida Power & Light projects costs as high as $12 billion per reactor. Because of these uncertainties, the EIS should examine the cost/benefits at the various cost ranges.
Radioactive Waste
The EIS should fully consider the effects of radioactive waste on Maryland and the Chesapeake Bay, including but not limited to:
High-Level Radioactive Waste
*the EIS should fully address the potential consequences of permanent storage of high-level radioactive waste adjacent to the Chesapeake Bay. Because there is no permanent storage facility for high-level radioactive waste, and it appears increasingly unlikely that there will be one during the lifetime of Calvert Cliffs-3, the EIS should address how and where all of the high-level radioactive waste generated by Calvert Cliffs-3 will be stored.
*the EIS should address potential consequences (on the Bay, on people, on flora and fauna in the region) of a serious accident in the irradiated fuel pool at Calvert Cliffs-3, and in other potential high-level radioactive waste storage facilities.
*the EIS should address the possible effects of Calvert Cliffs-3 on the existing dry cask irradiated fuel storage units at the Calvert Cliffs site, including their potential degradation over time as well as the potential impacts of a large expansion of the dry cask units to store high-level radioactive waste from Calvert Cliffs-3.
*the EIS should address possible effects of transportation of radioactive waste generated at Calvert Cliffs, in the unlikely event a waste repository ever will be built. This should include road, rail and barge transportation on the Chesapeake Bay into the Port of Baltimore. An accident or attack that sinks a barge carrying high-level radioactive waste would spell unprecedented catastrophe for the Bay. If barges are not used, then trucks or trains would be. The Baltimore train tunnel fire of 2001 could have killed thousands if high-level radioactive waste had been on board, and that route has been targeted by the Dept. of Energy in the past. DOE truck shipment routes criss-cross the State of Maryland.
"Low-Level" Radioactive Waste
*the EIS should address how and where all of the "low-level" radioactive waste Calvert Cliffs-3 can be expected to generate during its lifetime will be stored. Maryland's access to the Barnwell, South Carolina "low-level" radioactive waste facility will end in June 2008. There are no current plans to build a new facility to handle radioactive waste generated in Maryland. Thus the EIS should assume that all "low-level" radioactive waste generated by Calvert Cliffs-3 will be stored on-site for its licensed lifetime.
*the EIS should fully address the impact on flora and fauna in the Chesapeake Bay caused by Calvert Cliffs-3's planned release of 525,000 gallons per year of radioactive waste into the Bay, as indicated by Constellation Energy's Response to Question 1-13 of the Maryland Public Service Commission.
Safety
*The EIS should describe and address the potential consequences of a beyond design basis accident at Calvert Cliffs-3 and should address potential additional risks of a First-of-a-Kind reactor design.
*The EIS should address the potential consequences of a jumbo jet assault on Calvert Cliffs-3, taking into consideration the leaked Electricite de France report indicating the EPR design is vulnerable to aircraft crashes (see Large and Associates, May 18, 2006, http://www10.antenna.nl/wise/news/R3150_aircraft_impact.pdf).
*The EIS should address the cumulative effects of routine radiation releases on nearby populations and on aquatic life in and around the Chesapeake Bay.
Emergency Planning
*The main conduits out of the zone are route 2/4 and the Thomas Johnson Bridge. Local residents have been quick to point out that traffic on 2/4 and the Johnson Bridge are slow on a good day. The EIS should examine what the result would be of entire communities frantically attempting to exit the zone simultaneously.
*The EIS should address the plans—and current lack of plans—to distribute protective Potassium Iodide pills to people living within 20 miles of Calvert Cliffs.
*The EIS should describe Calvert Cliff-3's backup power systems for emergency sirens and address how the utility will ensure compliance with the requirement that it can notify members of the public in the event of an accident and concurrent loss of onsite/offsite power.
Please add your own specific concerns and issues!
For more information on Calvert Cliffs-3 and the Chesapeake Safe Energy Coalition, visit our website at www.safeenergymd.org
-30-
< Return to Previous Page
|
