ML20207A652
"Draft Meeting" is not in the list (Request, Draft Request, Supplement, Acceptance Review, Meeting, Withholding Request, Withholding Request Acceptance, RAI, Draft RAI, Draft Response to RAI, ...) of allowed values for the "Project stage" property.
| ML20207A652 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Calvert Cliffs  |
| Issue date: | 04/06/1999 |
| From: | NRC |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20207A631 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9905270124 | |
| Download: ML20207A652 (109) | |
Text
i i
ATTACHMENT 4 TRANSCRIPT OF THE APRIL 6,1999 PUBLIC MEETING TO DISCUSS THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT REGARDING THE CALVERT CLIFFS NUCLEAR POWER PLANT TO SUPPORT REVIEW OF THE LICENSE RENEWAL APPLICATION 7:00 P.M. SESSION 9905270124 990512
~
PDR ADOCK 05000317 T
PDR i
1 1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 2
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 3
4 PUBLIC MEETING - ENVIRONMENTAL 5
REVIEW FOR THE CALVERT CLIFFS 6
8 9
Holiday Inn Select 10 155 Holiday Drive 11 Solomons, MD 20688
)
12 Tuesday, April 6, 1999 13 14 The public meeting, commenced, pursuant to notice, 15 at 7:00 p.m.
16 17 PARTICIPANTS:
18 FRANCIS CAMERON, Facilitator 19 CYNTHIA CARPENTER, NRC 20 CHRISTOPHER GRIMES, NRC 21-THOMAS KENYON, NRC 22 MARY ANN PARKHURST, Pacific Northwest National 23 Laboratory 24 ROBERT PALLA, NRC 25
2 1
EVENING SESSION 2
[7:00 p.m.]
3 MR. CAMERON:
Good evening.
4 I'd like to welcome you to the NRC's public 5
meeting on the draft environmental impact statement for the 6
relicensing of the Calvert Cliffs nuclear plant, and my 7
name's Chip Cameron, I'm Special Counsel for Public Liaison 8
at the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, and I am going to 9
serve as your facilitator tonight, and I would welcome those 10 of you who are here new to he meeting and also welcome back 11 all of you who enjoyed this afternoon's meeting so much that 12 you wanted to come back tonight, but tonight you are going 13 to get an opportunity to hear the NRC and our contractors 14 tell you what some of the findings are in the draft 15 environmental impact statement, and we're going to give you 16 a status on license renewal generally, and you're going to 17 get an opportunity to question the NRC on some of these 18 findings and to give us some comments on license renewal, 19 and I would just emphasize that you may hear us talking 20 about adopting certain findings or embracing certain 21 findings.
22 Keep in mind that this is a draft environmental 23 impact statement.
24 So, it won't be finalized until we consider all of 25 the comments that we get in the public comment process,
3 i
1 including those that we get tonight.
Then the findings will 2
be finalized.
i 3
The NRC is accepting written comments on the draft
{
4 environmental impact statement, and my colleagues will be 5
telling you how you file written comments and when the 6
comment period closes, but we're here to meet with you 7
tonight personally.
8 We will consider your comments tonight just as we 9
would a written comment.
We will evaluate that for the 10 draft environmental impact statement before we go to the 11 final statement.
12 I'm going to hopefully-assist all of us in having 13 a constructive meeting tonight and making sure that 14 everything is clear for you and making sure that everybody 15 has a chance to speak tonight and to try to keep us focused.
16 Now, the main topic, as I said, is the draft 17 environmental impact statement, but one of our first 18 presentations on the agenda tonight is going to be Chris 19' Grimes of the NRC staff, who's going to talk about license 1
20 renewal generally, and he'll talk about some of the age 21 management issues that are also being considered in license 22.
renewal.
23-In terms of ground rules, we're going to have some
-24 sessions on individual topics.
If you have a question after 25 that particular topic, please ask it, make a comment on that
e 1
topic.
2 We also have two topics on the agenda that are 3
fairly broad, Chris Grimes' talk on license renewal 4
generally and then our conclusions at the end.
5 If you have a statement that you want to make, 6
those are the best times to make it.
7 I have a few cards of people who want to speak 8
again, and I think what I'll do is I'll -- unless they 9
notify me otherwise, I'll probably save those till the end 10 of the evening, because I think we will have an end to the 11 evening tonight, unlike this afternoon that did not have an 12 end.
13 So, I think we'll have plenty of time for those 14 comments to come in, and I just would introduce my 15 colleagues.
They're going to be talking, but why don't you 16 just introduce yourselves now, so everybody knows who you 17 are?
18 MS. CARPENTER:
My name is Cindy Carpenter, and 19 I'm the Branch Chief for the Generic Issues, Environmental, 20 Financial, and Rule-making Branch.
21 MR. GRIMES:
My name is Chris Grimes, and I'm the 1
22 Chief of the License Renewal and Standardization Branch in 23 the office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, and I have overall 24 programmatic responsibility for license renewal.
25 MR. KENYON:
My name is Tom Kenyon.
I'm the
5 1
Environmental Project Manager on the license renewal project 2
for Calvert Cliffs, and I work for Cindy.
3 MR. CAMERON:
Okay.
Thank you.
And let's go to 4
-- we have a bunch of NRC staff and contractor assistance 5
with tus tonight, and people from the Office of General 6
Counsel.
So, if you have questions, we're here to try to 7'
help you with that.
.8 I'm just. introducing the presenters, and I'll ask 9
Mary Ann to introduce herself.
10 MS. PARKHURST:
I am Mary Ann Parkhurst from 11' Pacific' Northwest National Laboratory, and I'm the leader on 12 this particular effort of the supplemental environmental 13 impact statement we're discussing tonight.
14 MR. CAMERON:
Okay.
Thank you, Mary Ann, and Bob?
15 MR. PALLA:
Yes.
Bob Palla with the Probabilistic 16.
Safety Assessment Branch of NRC.
I'll be talking about the 17-severe accident mitigation alternatives.
18 10R. CAMERON:
Okay.
Great.
And we have a whole 19 host of other people, not a whole bunch but a few at any 20
-rate.
' 2 11 Do we want to start off, Cindy?
22-MS, CARPENTER:
Yes.
23 MR. CAMERON:
All right.
24 MS. CARPENTER:
Hi.
25 As I noted before, my name is Cindy Carpenter, and
6 1
I'm the Branch Chief for the Generic Issues, Environmental, 2
Financial, Rule-making Branch in the Office of Nuclear 3
Reactor Regulation within the NRC, and we're here today to 4
discuss the results of the NRC's environmental review of the 5
Calvert Cliffs nuclear power plant in support of the 6
Baltimore Gas & Electric license renewal application of the 7
plant.
8 We'll talk a little bit about the statutory 9
requirements for this action, the results of the staff's 10 review, the preliminary conclusions of the staff resulting 11 from this review, the schedule that we're working to, and we 12 will provide members of the public an opportunity to comment 13 or ask questions in what's on our staff's environmental 14 impact statement or anything that you hear about today.
15 Slide three.
16 To provide you with some background, the operating 17 licenses for the Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant, Units 18 one and two, will currently expire in the years 2014 and 19 2016 respectively.
20 As will be discussed later, the Atomic Energy Act 21 allows a utility such as Baltimore Gas & Electric to renew 22 its license for up to 20 years.
23 Part of the license renewal process requires the 24 NRC to systematically consider environmental impacts during 25 our decision-making process on this matter.
7 1
Slide four.
2 Calvert Cliffs submitted their license renewal 3
application in April of 1998.
We-held a scoping meeting 4
here in July of 1998 to identify issues that may have needed 5
to be addressed during our staff's review.
6 In March of this year, the NRC issued a draft 7
environmental impact statement describing the results of our 8
review.
We're currently in the middle of the comment period 9
for that review, during which we received comments from 10 members of the public on its contents.
11 These comments may help the staff evaluate the 12 acceptability of the environmental aspects of the Calvert 13 Cliffs license renewal.
This brings us to why we're here 14 today.
15 The purpose of today's meeting is to present the 16 results of the NRC's environmental review, to discuss what 17 our staff considered, to clarify any issues to members of 18 the public, to assist you in preparing comments, to identify 19 whether or not an environmental license renewal issue was 20 inappropriately excluded, accepting comments from you and 21 other members of the public, and to discuss the :chedule for i
22 submitting comments and how to submit them.
i 23 Before we get into the details of the NRC's 24 environmental review, I want to turn the podium over to Mr.
12 5 Christopher Grimes.
He is the Branch Chief of the License
8 1
Renewal and Standardization Branch, and he'll provide you 2
with an. overview of the entire license renewal process.
3 MR. GRIMES:
As Cindy mentioned, I'm going to try 4
and describe not only the overview of the license renewal 5
process, but I'm also going to talk a little bit about the 6
overall function.of the NRC and its responsibilities.
7 The NRC's mission is to regulate the civilian use 8
of nuclear materials to ensure adequate protection of public 9
health and safety, to promote the common defense and 10 security, and to protect the environment.
11 The NRC's authority is derived from the Atomic 12 Energy Act of 1954, the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, 13 as well as amendments to those acts, and other legislation 14 involving security, waste, and energy policies.
15 The NRC's regulations are issued under Title 10 of 16 the Code of Federal Regulations, and we will refer to that 17 repeatedly tonight as 10 CFR in short.
18 For commercial power reactors, the NRC's 19 regulate / functions include licensing.
A nuclear power 20 plant license is based on a set of established regulatory 4
l 21 requirements to ensure that the design and operation of the I
22 facility are safe based on radiological safety standards.
23 We do radiological safety, not worker safety or 24 other things that the Occupational Safety and Health 25 Administration might get into, or other agencies that have
1 9
1 similar responsibilities.
2 The NRC conducts routine inspections to ensure 3
that plant design and operation conform to the license 4
requirements, and we take enforcement actions in the event i
5 that the license requirements are not being satisfied.
6 Could I have slide seven, please?
7 The Atomic Energy Act and the NRC's regulations 8
are based on a 40-year license life, but the acts and the 9
regulations also envision license renewal -- that is, a 10 period of operation beyond 40 years.
11 However, once selected, that 40-year design became 12 the service _ life for a facility, and much of the design was 13 predicated on that basis.
The requirements for the initial 14 40-year license are described in 10 CFR Part 50.
15 When the first reactors were constructed, major 16 components were expected to last at least 40 years.
17 Operating experience has demonstrated that that expectation 18 was unrealistic for some major plant components such as the 19 steam generator in a pressurized water reactor.
20 However, research over the past decade has 21 concluded that there are no technical limitations to plant 22 life, since the major components and structures can be 23 replaced or refurbished.
Thus, a plant life is determined 24 primarily on economic factors.
25 When I talked about refurbishment, I'm talking
10 1
about in terms of maintenance activities, rebuilding, 2
valves, pumps, or motors.
3 However, when we talk about refurbishment later in 4
the context of the environmental impact statement, we talk 5
about refurbishment as it would affect the overall 6
environment.
7 To that extent, it would be adding a third unit or 8
building a new structure or things that would have a 9
profound effect on the environment.
10 So, this is refurbishment with a little "R".
11 Later you'll hear about refurbishment with a big "R".
12 As a result of a determination that there was no 13 technical limitation on a plant life, the NRC established 14 safety requirements in 10 CFR Part 54 to provide for license 15 renewal.
16 It was incumbent upon us to do that, because it 17 was -- there is an expectation that, if a plant can operate 18 beyond its license life, there should be a clear 19 articulation of what the requirements should be so that 20 facilities could determine what would be expected for 21 operation in that extended term.
22 10 CFR Part 54, which was initially issued in 1991 1
23 and amended in 1995, provides that the basis upon which a j
24 plant was originally licensed remains valid after 40 years 25 and can be carried over into the 20-year period of i
11 1
operation.
2 Thus, we do not look at certain aspects of the 3
license that would remain the same.
We concentrate on those 4
things that are important to making a determination about 5
operating beyond the 40-year life.
6 That rule requires that an applicant demonstrate 7
that the appliuable aging effects will be adequately managed 8
for the period of extended operation for a defined scope of 9
passive, long-lived systems, structures, and components 10 based on a determination that aging for active components is 11 adequately managed by existing maintenance and surveillance 12 programs and other aspects of the existing licensing basis 13 can continue through the license extension period.
14 The rule also requires that certain time-dependent 15 design analysis be identified and evaluated.
16 A new license can be granted upon a finding by the 17 Commission that actions have been or will be taken so that 18 there is reasonable assurance that applicable aging effects 19 will be adequately managed for the period of extended 20 operation and whether or not the adverse environmental 21 impacts of license renewal are so great that preserving the 22 option of license renewal for energy planning 23 decision-makers would be unreasonable.
24 I think it's very important to understand that all 25 safety issues are still ( ' concern to the NRC, but you will
12 1
notice that the focus of the license renewal review is only 2
on those parts that are related to aging of passive 3
long-lived systems, structures, and components.
4 That's the part of concern that we need to clearly 5
address to be able to make an overall conclusion that the 6
continuation of the plant operation and the licensing 7
processes will ensure safety for years to come.
8 Slide eight, please.
9 The United States currently received about 20 l
10 percent of its electricity from 103 operating nuclear power 11 plants.
The electricity sector is moving rapidly to a 12 deregulated environment in which energy supply choices will i
13 be dictated by cost to the consumer.
14 At the same time, there are growing pressures to 15 limit fossil fuel emissions for both clean air'and potential 16 global climate change reasons.
17 Deregulation and competition have increased 18 utility interest in. license renewal to strategic importance, 19 because large generating plants have become a vital economic 20 interest.
21 Operating nuclear power plants are expected to 22 remain competitive after retail electricity restructuring 23 provided that the costs associated with safely maintaining 24 operating the plants can be reasonably projected into the 25 future.
13 1
Some U.S. plants may not apply for license renewal 2
for economic reasons.
Some -- the NRC established the 3
license renewal requirements so that any plant that is 4
financially.and materially capable of operating safely 5-beyond the current term should have that opportunity, as it 6
described in the generic environmental impact statement for 7
8 Calvert Cliffs is the first plant to apply for 9
A second renewal application for the 10 Oconee plant in South Carolina was received in July 1998.
11 Although these licenses do not expire until 2013 12 or later, many utilities are interested in pursuing license 13 renewal today to ensure that they clearly understand what 14 requirements will be necessary for an extended license for 15 future financial planning.
16
. Slide nine, please.
17 The licensing process consists of technical and j
l 18
' environmental reviews which are conducted in parallel.
The 19 safety review is documented in a safety evaluation report, l
20 and the environmental review is documented in a supplement 21 to the generic environmental impact statement.
I 22 The aging management findings will be verified by I
i 23 NRC inspections, and a safety review will be -- the safety i
24 evaluation will be reviewed by the NRC's Advisory Committee j
i 25 on Reactor Safeguards, in accordance with the usual I
I
14 1
practices for issuance of a license.
2 As I mentioned before, it's important to keep in 3
mind that this -- these parallel review efforts are 4
conducted within an environment that continues to monitor 5
plant operation today, that consists of inspection 6-activities and maintenance of the license requirements.
7 On March 21, 1999, the NRC issued the safety 8
evaluation for Calvert Cliffs which addresses the aging 9
management for the plant systems, structures, and 10 components.
That's separate from the environmental impact 11 that's going to be discussed tonight.
12 That report addresses things like embrittiment of 13 the reactor vessel and other technical issues associated 14 with plant safety.
15 That report is available to the public.
Meetings 16 will be held between the NRC and BG&E in the future to 17 discuss the resolution of open and confirmatory items 18 identified in that report.
19 The resolution of those issues will be reflected l
20 in a revised report that is scheduled to be completed in 21 November 1999.
22 Following receipt of the renewal application for 23 Calvert Cliffs in April 1998, the NRC received a request for 24 a hearing on the license renewal application.
Because the 25 group requesting the hearing failed to point to any specific i
15 1
issues in the application which raised a significant safety 2
concern, the request was denied.
Therefore, there are no 3
formal hearings planned for the Calvert Cliffs license 4
renewal application.
5 However, as I said before, there will continue to 6
be meetings open to the public between NRC and BG&E to 7
discuss the contents of the safety evaluation and the 8
comments on the draft -- on the supplement to the generic 9
environmental impact statement.
10 Time is designated at the conclusion of each 11 public meeting the NRC holds for public comments and 12 questions.
13 For example, monthly management meetings are held 14 in Rockville to discuss the status of the renewal review, 15 and a public meeting has been scheduled at the Calvert 16 Cliffs education center on April 15th to discuss the results 17 of the inspection activities conducted thus far.
18 In addition, the safety evaluation report and 19 related correspondence are available in the local public 20 document room, and some of the documents are also available 21 on the NRC's web page.
22 The Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards, or 23 the ACRS, performs an independent review of the safety 24 evaluation, and they report their findings and 25 recommendations directly to the Commission.
16 1
They also hold public meetings, and those meetings 2
are transcribed.
3 A meeting of the ACRS Subcommittee on Plant 4
License Renewal will be held in Rockville, Maryland, on 5
April 28th and 29th.
Oral and written statements can be 6
provided during that meeting, in accordance with the 7
instructions that are described in the notice of the meeting 8
in the Federal Register, and if any of you are interesting 9
in participating in that meeting, just see me after this 10 session and I'll get you a copy of the Federal Register 11 notice.
12 That concludes my, ' view of the licensing 13 process and the focus for license renewal.
14 At this time, I'd like to entertain any questions 15 you might have about the license renewal process.
16 I will offer at this point a remark based on my 17 experience earlier today, and that is, for those of you who i
l l
18 are healthy skeptics, I think that this meeting might serve 19 a useful purpose for you.
l 20 If you're terminally cynical, I don't know that 21 we're going to be able to solve that, but we will certainly 22 try.
23 Any questions or comments?
l 24 MR. CAMERON:
All right.
Thank you very much, 25 Chris.
t
17 1
We're going to go to Tom Kenyon, who's going to i
2 describe the NEPA process, National Environmental Policy Act 3
process in a little bit more detail for you.
4 MR. KENYON:
Good evening.
My name is Tom Kenyon, 5
and I am the Environmental Project Manager for the Calvert 6
Cliffs project.
1 7
I intend'to briefly talk about the process 8
required by the National Environrental Policy Act, what we 9
call the NEPA process, and then describe how that process 10
'has been translated into the regulations at the NRC and then 11 how those regulations are being applied to Calvert Cliffs.
12 NEPA was enacted in 1969 and requires Federal 13 agencies to use a systematic approach to consider 14 environmental impacts in certain decision-making matters.
15 It is a disclosure tool that involves the public.
It 16 invokes a process whereby information is gathered to enable 17 Federal agencies to make better decisions and then documents 18 that information and makes it available to the public to 19 evaluate it.
20 The NEPA process results in a number of different 21 kinds of documents.
Chief among them is the environmental 22 impact statement, which is required for major Federal 23 actions that significantly affect the quality of the human 24 environment.
25 There are a couple of variations in these types of
(.
18 1
environmental impact statement that can be prepared, 2
depending on the type of proposed action.
3 These include a Generic Environmental Impact 4
Statement, or also what we call the GEIS, which addressed l
5 generic impacts that are common to a number of similar 6
proposed actions.
7 There is the Supplemental Environmental Impact 8
Statements, or what we call the SEIS, where an environmental 9
impact statement has already been issued and then additional 10 information or issues arise that need to be considered and 11 disclosed in a supplement.
12 The reason I'm making this distinction tonight is 13 because the NRC uses them both, and we've used them both in 14 putting out information on the environmental impact on 15 Calvert Cliffs.
16 The NRC has already determined that license 17 renewal is a Federal -- is a major Federal action, and so, 18 therefore, we're in the NEPA process now for Calvert Cliffs 19 and have prepared the draft supplement to the license 20 renewal generic environmental impact statement, and that 21 supplement discusses the plant specific results of the 22 Calvert Cliffs review.
23 Next slide, please.
24 As far as the NEPA process goes, there's a number
.25 of steps that the NRC is required to follow, and the first l
I
19 1
step is issuance of a notice of intent in which we notify 2
the public that we're preparing an environmental impact 3
statement.
4 For Calvert Cliffs, we issued the notice of intent 5
in June of 1998.
During that time, to prepare for the 6
review, the staff assembled a team of NRC staff with 7
backgrounds in the specific technical and scientific i
i 8
disciplines that are required to perform these environmental l
l 9
reviews.
l l
10 In addition, to supplement the technical expertise 1
l 11 of the staff, we engaged the assistance of Pacific Northwest 12 National Laboratories to ensure that we had a well-rounded 13 knowledge base to perform this review.
14 We put together a team of about 20 people.
A 15 number of those people are here today to answer any i
16 questions that you may have.
17 The next step is the scoping process, where we l
18 identify issues that are to be addressed in the 19 Environmental Impact Statement.
The scoping period for l
20 Calvert Cliffs began in June 1998 and ended in August.
l l
l 21 During that time, the staff solicited input from Federal, 1
i I
22 state, and local authorities and also from the public.
In l
23 fact, we had two scoping meetings here in July last year 24 just for that purpose.
25
.In addition, during this time, the staff visited I
1
20 1
the site to obtain a better understanding of the site layout 2
and get'an idea of the regional setting and to see what BG&E 3
-- what kind of environmental measures were put into place 4
by BG&E.
)
5 Slide 12, please.
6 After obtaining input from the public and the 7
other sources, the NRC conducts its environmental review.
8 The staff looks at the environmental impacts of the proposed 9
license renewal, it looks at alternatives to the proposed 10
' license renewal and the impacts from those alternatives, and 11 it looks at mitigation measures, which are things that can 12 be done that would decrease the environment impact of a 13 license renewal.
14 It is important to note that, during this period, 15 for Calvert Cliffs, a number of issues were raised by the 16 NRC, by the public, or were identified by the staff that 17 didn't really have a bearing on the decision to renew the l
18-license.
i 19 However, a number of these issues were still 20 determined to be appropriate for consideration now, because 21 the plant is -- in light of the fact that the plant is 22 currently operating.
23-These issues have been referred to the appropriate 24
'NRC programs such as the allegations program, the operating 25 plant project manager, or other agencies that may be i
i l
I
21 1
interested in these issues for disposition.
2 After an agency has conducted its environmental 3
review, it issues what is called the draft environmental 4
impact statement for public comment.
1 5
These are drafts not because they're incomplete 6
but because they're in an intermediate stage in the 7
decision-making process.
8 In the case of Calvert Cliffs, we've called this 9
the Draft Supplement 1 to the Generic Environmental Impact 10 Statement for license renewal, and I'll explain the 11 interrelationship of these in a minute.
12 The minimum public comment period that's required 13 for this document is 45 days, and that's where we are in the
)
14 process.
15 In the case of the staff's Calvert Cliffs review, 16 the NRC elected to allow a total of 75 days, which provided 17 an additional 30 days for comment.
18 Today we are holding -- we've held one meeting 19 this afternoon and we're holding today's meeting to describe 20 the results of our review, to answer any questions related 21 to the environmental review, and to try to help members of 22 the public, to try to help you formulate any comments you 23 may want to submit.
24 The comment period for Calvert Cliffs ends on May 25 20, 1999.
22 1
After the agency has gathered all the comments and 2
evaluated them, it may decide that it has to change the 3
environmental impact statement, and it will do so, and then 4
it will issue it as a Final Environmental Impact Statement, 5
and for Calvert Cliffs, we're working to issue the Final 6
Environmental Impact Statement in November.
7 Next slide, please.
8 This slide shows a flow diagram of the 9
environmental license renewal process.
The second line in 10 the flow diagram is scoping and environmental review, is 11 what took place over the last year, and now we're at the 12 draft supplement stage, where we have issued the supplement 13 in March and we're acquiring public comments.
14 Next slide, please.
15 Now I'd like to spend a few moments on how the 16 staff incorporated the NEPA process into the regulatory 17 framework of the NRC.
18 The NRC's implementing regulations for carrying 19 out the NEPA process are located in Part 51 of Title 10 of 20 the Code of Federal Regulations, or 10 CFR Part 51, as we 21 call it.
22 It outlines the contents of those environmental 23 impact statements and the process that the NRC will use in 24 order to meet the requirements of NEPA.
25 Early on in establishing the license renewal l
l 23 1
process, it was recognized that the original Environmental 2
Impact Statements that were written for the plants when they 3
were first -- received their operating licenses would need 4
to be updated to address any refurbishment issues and to 5
address the additional 20 years of operation.
6 So, the NRC undertook a rule-making effort to L
7 modify Part 51 and to amend it to address license renewal 8
and environmental impacts.
9 This was done separately from the rule-making 10
' efforts on Part 54 which address the safety issues involved l
11 with license renewal.
12 As part of the rule-making effort on Part 51, the 13 staff developed a Generic Environmental Impact Statement 14 known as the GEIS which took a systematic look at the 15 thousands of hours of operation, of operating experience at 16 all the nuclear power plants to help us identify potential 17 environmental impacts.
18 In addition, the staff is finalizing an l
19 Environmental Standard Review Plan for license renewal to 20 provide guidance on how to perform this review.
21 The staff -- for Calvert Cliffs, the staff used a 22 draft of the Environmental Standard. Review Plan to help 23 guide us in our review and used these other guidance for --
24 and public input during the scoping process.
l 25 There are copies of 10 CFR Part 51, the GEIS, and l
\\
f L
24 1
the Environmental Standard Review Plan in the back, on the 2
tables in the other room, for your examination.
These 3
documents are also available at the NRC's public document 4
rooms and from the Government Printing Office should you 5
want one -- a copy for yourself.
6 Next slide, please.
7 The GEIS was published at NUREG-1437 and was 8
issued as a final document in 1996.
It formed the basis for 9
the rule revisions in Part 51.
10 The NRC had worked with the states, the Council on 11 Environmental Quality, the Environmental Protection Agency, i
12 and a number of other groups and agencies and held a series 13 of public workshops to develop the final GEIS.
14 Based on the extensive interactions that took 15
' place, the NRC decided that it was appropriate to limit the 16 scope of what we were going to consider in the license 17 renewal arena.
18 The staff identified and categorized the impacts 19 that were specific to license renewal both during the 20 refurbishment period and also during the additional 20 years 21 of operation.
22 They identified a total of 92 potential 23 environmental impacts that could result from license 24 -
renewal.
25 -
In the GEIS, for each issue, the staff describes
25 1
the activity that identifies the population and resource 2
that was affected or could be affected, it assessed the 3
nature of -- and impact of the impact, and it characterized 4
the significance of the effect and considered whether or not 5
additional mitigation was warranted.
6 Next slide, please.
7 To characterize the significance of the effect, 8
the staff used -- adopted the definitions issued by the 9
President's Council on Environmental Quality -- that is, the 10 effects could be small, moderate, or large, and a small 11 effect is an effect that is not detectable or is too small 12 to noticeably alter any importan't attribute of the resource, 13 a moderate effect is one is that's sufficient to alter 14 noticeably but does not de-stabilize the important 15 attributes of the resource, and a large effect is one that's 16 clearly noticeable and is clearly likely to -- sufficient to 17 de-stabilize important attributes of the resource.
18 Next slide.
19 When the staff looked at the 92 issues identified 20 in the GEIS, it found out -- it noticed that some of these 21 were generic, and that is they were common to all plants
.22 regardless of their design or where they were cited.
The i
23 NRC wanted to categorize these differently from those that 24 needed to be evaluated on a plant-specific basis, and so, we j
25 chose to designate these generic impacts as being in
26 i
1 Category 1.
l l
2 Three criteria were developed to determine whether l
3 or not an impact was a Category one issue.
If an impact met i
1
\\
4 all three of those criteria, it was considered a category 5
one impact and was addressed on a generic basis in the GEIS.
i 6
The first criterion was that the impact had to 7
apply to all plants or to plants with specific site 8
characteristics such as cooling towers or cooling systems.
l 9
The second criterion was what we call the single 10 significance level.
That is, it could not be a small impact 11 at one site and have a large impact at another site.
It had j
j 12 to either be -- have a small effect at all the sites, it had 13 to be moderate at all the sites, or a large impact.
14 And the final is additional plant-specific 15 mitigation measures were not likely to be sufficiently 16 beneficial to be warranted.
17 An example of a Category c)e issue is the 1
18 transmission line right-of-way impacts.
All plants have 19 transmission line corridors, and the NRC considered that 20 those impacts applied to all plants.
The significance level 21 of the impact was the same at all the plants, and there were 22 no further mitigation measures that could be taken on a 23
. plant-specific basis.
24 There were 68 Category one issues identified and 25 assessed in the final GEIS.
These 68 are identified in 10 l
i l
27 1
CFR Part 51 as not requiring additional plant-specific l
2 analysis.
3 However, the applicants must inform the NRC in its 4
license renewal application whether it is aware of any new 5
and significant information regarding these category one 6
issues.
7 In addition, during the scoping phase of the 1
8 review, the NRC looks at the comments from members of the j
9 public and the Federal, state, and local authorities to 10 determine whether or not there is any significant new 11 information on these issues.
12 If some new and significant information was 13 revealed during the staff's review, that information is 14 included in the staff's review to determine the 15 environmental impact, and if not, the staff adopts the 16 generic conclusions from the GEIS.
17 Next slide, please.
18 Of the remaining issues, 22 of the categorized 19 issues did not meet one or more of the Category one 20 criteria, and therefore, a plant-specific review was 21 required by the staff.
22 Next slide, please.
23-There are two other issues that were not 24 categorized during the rule-making process but are issues
. :2 5 that we still look at.
1 28 l
1 Because the Presidential Executive Order on 2
environmental justice had just been issued at the time the 3
GEIS was issued, the staff concluded that it didn't have l
4 enough information to categorize it one way or the other.
5 However, the final rule determined that we still were i
6 required to look at it on a plant-specific basis.
7 The second issue concerns the chronic -- possible 8
chronic effects of electro-magnetic fields.
l 9
Because conflicting research results existed and 10 there was no clear conclusions regarding the impact, the 11 Commission decided to wait until there was a clear 1
12 scientific consensus on the issue before categorizing it as 13 a one or a two category.
14 Again, the final rules still determined that the l
l 15 effects of electro-magnetic fields must be reviewed on a 16 plant-specific basis.
17 All 92 of these issues are codified in 10 CFR Part 18 51.
There's a table, Table B-1, containing all 92 of them 19 in the regulation, along with their designation.
20 And finally, the review process is such that it's I
21 intended to identify whether or not there is any significant l
22 new information over and above the 92 issues that we had 23 identified.
l 24 Applicants must -- such as BGE must inform the NRC 25 whether or not they are aware of any significant new 1
1 29 1
information.
In addition, the staff does its own 2
independent review to determine whether or not there is new
-3 information.
4 Such information for Category 1 issues is included 5
in the staff's review to determine the environmental impact, 6-or otherwise, if not, the staff adopts the generic 7
conclusions from the GEIS for a Category 1 issue.
8 9
If significant new information is revealed and 10 identified on an issue that was not considered in the GEIS, 11 then we look at it on a plant-specific basis.
I 12 Next slide, please.
I 13 The purpose of this slide is to show how the GEIS 14 and the supplement one on Calvert Cliffs are interrelated.
15 On the left side are the 92 issues that were considered in i
16 the GEIS, 68 being Category 1 and 22 being in the Category 17 2.
On the right side shows what was evaluated on Calvert 18 Cliffs and how the issues fell out.
19 First the staff looks to see whether or not these 1
20
-- all 92 issues fall -- are applicable or not applicable.
d 21 In the case of Category 1 issues, 20 issues were determined 22 not to be applicable because of refurbishment or because of 23 site characteristics at the plant site.
24 In addition, Category 2 issues, nine issues were 25 determined not to be applicable.
30 1
'All the rest of the issues have been assessed by 2
the staff.
3 Now, I want to point out that, during our scoping 4
process last year, one new issue was uncovered, and we will 5
talk about that.further on in the presentation, but that, 6
too, was also assessed.
7 Next slide, please.
.8 Well, that concludes my discussion on the NEPA 9
process and the role of the GEIS in the staff's review.
10 The next item on the agenda is going to be a 11 detailed discussion of the staff's results of the 12 plant-specific assessment of Calvert Cliffs.
13 MR. CAMERON:
Does anybody have a question on the 14 NEPA overview that Tom just presented before we get into the 15 site-specific environmental impact statement?
Any 16 questions?
17 All right.
18 Well, Mary Ann, let's go to you.
19 MS. PARKHURST:
Because the picture in the draft 20 Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement of the plant was 21-so poor due to some technical difficulties in going from one 22-kind of electronic version to another and publishing it in 23 Word Perfect, we ended up with -- we thought we'd give you a 24 little better picture so you could what the front of the --
25 what the plant looks like from Chesapeake Bay.
31 1
Okay.
2 Calvert Cliffs nuclear power plant draft 3
environmental impact statement, a supplement to the GEIS --
4 we're going to call it a SEIS for supplemental environmental 5
impact statement so I don't have to keep saying that each 6
time I go through this.
7 So, this is the SEIS that -- this document that we 8
are really here about tonight.
9 I'm also going to use the words "Calvert Cliffs" 10 to refer to the power plant rather than say CCNPP like we 11 use in the document throughout, something the editors had us 12 deal with, so they kept their acronyms straight.
Anytime I 13 say Calvert Cliffs, unless I'm specifically talking about 14 the geological structure, which I doubt that I'll be doing, 15 it means the nuclear plant.
16 Okay.
17 The GEIS dealt with generic issues.
The SEIS 18 deals primarily with site-specific issues, even though we 19 have to go through and look at all 92 of the generic and 20 site-specific issues.
21 We look at, like Tom was talking about, the 22 Category 1 issues, Category 2's, the two issues that have 23 not been characterized, and any new issues that result from 24 this analysis.
25 Next slide, please.
32 1
Though important to the overall license renewal 2
process, this environmental analysis is not going to deal 3
with several topics here, and we've got four main ones 4
listed.
5 We're not dealing with the need for power.
That's 6
something between the utilities and the state.
7 We're not dealing with the cost of power.
That 8
will drive a lot of the decisions made on which options the 9
utilities choose to maintain.
10 Safety is an issue of utmost importance.
It is in 11 the document that Chris Grimes was talking about earlier.
12 It's a different analysis entirely.
13 And we're not going to be dealing with spent fuel 14 disposal.
We will deal somewhat with the transportation 15 issue.
16 The process for evaluating the environmental 17 issues was done in accordance with the NRC's environmental 18 standard review plan.
The starting point was a review of 19 BG&E's application, which included an environmental report.
20 We then went into a public scoping process and a 21 site visit so that we could all familiarize ourselves with 22 the plant, its setting, siting, and possible issues, and 23 then from the public scoping process, we looked through, 24 with all the comments considered, looking specifically for 25 new information.
i l
33 1
Next one, please.
2 There was a lot of -- there are a lot of 3-consultations with various organizations.
We visited 4
county, state, regional governments, chambers of councils, 5
information services, including universities and other 6
scientific centers.
7 We discussed the current environmental permits 8
that have any -- would have anything to do with license 9
renewal, the extensions on the current operating time limit.
10 We discussed the permits that exist now, the 11 permits that would have to exist later, and any consequences 12 the regulatory organizations might see having some impact on 13
-- during the renewal term.
14 Next one, please.
15 I'm going to skip through these next four slides.
16 You've pretty much seen it in terms of what Tom discussed 17 earlier in the category one and category two issues.
She'll 18 put up the slides just so you can see which ones we're going 19 through and save ourselves a little bit of time.
20 Okay.
Keep going.
Next one.
Okay.
21 Let's focus on the contents of the SEIS.
We 22 started out with an introduction, talks a little bit about 23 the purpose and need for the action, some of the license i
24 renewal issues, processes, NEPA process, and consultations 25 that we used in the process.
J
34 1
Then we go to a descriptive chapter where we talk 2
about what exists right now, what the plant's like in many l
3 terms.
4 It looks at the site and its external setting, the 5
reactors, cooling systems, radioactive and non-radioactive 6
waste, plant operations and maintenance, and the power 7
transmission system.
8 Then we go into categories of plant interactions 9
with the environment, and I've got them listed here by 10 topics, from land use and water use and quality, air 11 quality, aquatic resources, terrestrial resources, l
12 radiological impacts to the surrounding area, socio-economic 13 factors and historic and archaeological resources.
14 Next one, please.
I 15 Chapter three deals with refurbishment.
In case 16 of Calvert Cliffs, BG&E stated in its environmental report 17 that it has not identified the need to undertake the major l
18 refurbishment activities that the GEIS assumed for license 19 renewal, and no other modifications have been identified 20 that would directly affect the environment or plant 21 effluence.
22-Therefore, because there are no refurbishment --
23 because no refurbishment is planned, this chapter really is 24 a place-holder and helps tie in with the GEIS, but again,
'25 there's no i.ssues here.
~
35 i
1 We only include the Category 1, Category 2 issues 2
related as listings for information, but we have no analyses 3
in this chapter.
I 4
Chapter four really is the heart of the
]
5 environmental aspects, most of the environmental aspects of 6
operations during the renewal term.
We're looking here at 7
Category 1 issues, looking for new and significant 8
information, and we're looking for -- looking at Category 2 l
9 issues looking for specific -- site-specific information 10 that has a bearing on potential consequences in the renewal 11 term, and again, we're looking for new issues raised by 12 BG&E, the public through like the public scoping meeting, or 13 by the staff during analysis.
14-Next one, please.
15 Our preliminary analysis of the category one 16 issues determined that we found -- we had no significant new 17 environmental information that would cause us to -- that 18 would require further analysis of these issues.
19 As a result, the staff embraces the conclusions of 20 the GEIS for these issues and, I would say, adopts the 21 conclusions of the GEIS for these category one issues.
22 Next slide, please.
23 After. going through the math that Tom did for us a 24 little earlier on the category two issues that were 25 applicable, we come up with mainly 13 issues that were
36 1
reviewed for site-specific information.
I've got most -- I
'2 have the issues listed on the next few slides.
3 In aquatic ecology, these consisted of entrainment 4
of fish and shellfish in early life stages into the cooling l
5 water systems, impingement of fish and shellfish in intake 6
screens, heat shock associated with cooling water discharge
{
7 into the Chesapeake Bay, and in terms of the aquatic 8
eco-system, we're really pretty lucky on this one to have i
9 extensive work done by the Maryland Power Plant Research 10 Program.
11 Actually, the Academy of National Sciences, S.
12 Benedict estuarian research -- I'm sorry, anybody help me 13 with the last word on that one -- organization, who have 14 done a 30-year or more study of the Chesapeake Bay here, 15 specifically around Calvert Cliffs, and so, the database on 16 aquatic ecology, water quality, water temperature, and so 17 on, is extensive, very well known, very well characterized, 18 and we were able to make use of their research and the 19 documents such as this, the Maryland Power Plants and the 20 Enviret. ment, by the Maryland Power Plant Research Program 21 the state puts out, very nice and useful information.
22 Our next topic in the category two issues was the 23 threatened or endangered species.
Review of these -- of 24 this issue required consultation with several outside 25 organizations, specifically the National Marine Fisheries
r.
l 37 1
Service and the U.S.
Fish & Wildlife Service.
2 The National Marine Fisheries Service concluded 3
that the short-nosed sturgeon and the loggerhead turtle 4
potentially occurring in the vicinity would not be adversely 5
affected by Calvert Cliffs' license renewal.
6 The Federal Fish -- the Fish & Wildlife Service 7
identified three Federally-protected species under their 8
jurisdiction that may occur at the Calvert Cliffs site.
9 These are the puritan tiger beetle, the northeastern beach
.10 tiger beetle, and the bald eagle.
11 Fish & Wildlife Service concluded that no. adverse 3
12 impacts to.these species was likely as a result of license 13 renewal.
14 They-did recommend that BGE amend its agreement 15 with the nature conservancy to allow foot access to the 16-beach below.calvert Cliffs so that a census of tiger beetle 17 population could be evaluated.
They also asked that the 18 site be maintained as tiger beetle habitat after 19 decommissioning.
20 The Fish & Wildlife Service recommended 21 constraints on activities within a quarter-mile of active
~
22 bald eagle nests during nesting season, as well, and BG&E is i
23-taking these to heart.
24 Next slide, please.
25; Taking these. seriously -- that sounds a little l
I
l 38 1
better.
2 Category two, continued issues here -- we're 3
looking at ground water use conflicts as another topic, and 4
this fits the particular issue concerning ground water use l
l 5
conflicts for plants that use more than 100 gallons per 1
6 minute.
l 7
This plant withdraws about 280 gallons per minute 8
and is in compliance with the ground water appropriations 9
permit issued by the Maryland Department of Environment.
i l
10 Also in the listing of category two issues is one I
11 affecting human health, that of electric shock from 12 electro-magnetic fields.
13 BG&E's south power transmission line circuit, 14 south circuit, was designed to be in compliance with the l
15 National Environmental Safety Code for electric shock 1
16 potential.
17 The north circuit was installed before this code l
18 was adopted, so BG&E had to verify that the north circuit l
19 also meets code recommendations for preventing electric l
20 shock from induced currents using calculations.
21 Next slide, please.
l 22 There are five Category 2 issues relative to i
23 socio-economics.
24 The first one I've got listed here is housing l
25 impacts.
BG&E adopted the GEIS's expectation of up to L
39 1
additional 60 employees that might be added during the 2
renewal term.
l l
3 They actually expect probably fewer than this, but 4
if they use that as an upper bound, we can continue with 5
this line of thought and figure out how much housing we 6
might need for the area.
7 Based on this projection, housing demands could 8
increase by as many as 190 housing units if these 60 9
employees generated a population increase of about 580 10 people.
This would be within Calvert and St. Mary counties.
11 A second issue here is public utilities.
If 12 you've got an increase of population, you may have to add 13 additional public water supplies to serve your additional 14 population.
15 Regarding off-site land use, because Calvert 16 County is experiencing high population growth, there's been 17 a conversion or there's likely to be a conversion of 18 agricultural land to residential and commercial uses, and 19 this is likely to continue.
However, it's projected that 20 less 1 percent would be attributable to plant-related 21 population growth.
22 One other topic -- and this one I'll mention is 23 property tax paid by the utility is a considerable portion 24 of the local budgets.
25 Transportation was mentioned in the public scoping
40 l
1 meeting as a very important piece, and I'll add that here.
1 2
The additional 60 employees that the plant may require are l
3 unlikely to add noticeably to the highway burden to and from
)
4 the plant, and the others generated and so on are not l
5 considered to be a signifiennt addition to the highway 6
burden.
7 Regarding historic and archaeological resources, 8
with no plans for future land disturbances, it was 9
determined that there was more likely to be a beneficial 10 rather than adverse effect by continuing to protect any 11 natural landscape or vegetation that would be protecting 12 buried sites.
13 So, this would actually -- could be a benefit that 14 way given that you're not having additional disturbance of i
15 the land.
16 Next slide, please.
17 As Tom mentioned, our two categories that weren't 18 categorized are environmental justice and chronic effects of 19 electro-magnetic fields.
20 Environmental justice is a relatively new subject 21 of analysis.
It refers to a policy that Federal action 22 should not result in a disproportionately high and adverse 23 environmental impact on low-income or minority populations.
24 Air, land, and water resources within 50 miles of Calvert 25 Cliffs were examined for such disproportionate adverse
41 1
impacts.
No unique or unusual pathways were identified that 2
would result in such impacts.
3 A demographics analysis of the area and field 4
interviews found small pockets of minority populations and 5
low-income populations.
6 These populations are either well-mixed into the 7
major populations or concentrations of the minority 8
individuals are too small to be identified in census-type 9
detail.
They are not located in place where disproportional 10 impacts would be expected.
11 Regarding the chronic effects of electro-magnetic 12 fields, the National Institute of Environmental Health 13 Sciences continues to look into this topic through -- with 14 the Department of Energy.
15 To date, the epidemiological and experimental 16 evidence of adverse health effects are still inconclusive.
17 Therefore, this remains un-categorized, and this is as far 18 as we take this topic at this time.
19 Next slide, please.
20 There was one new issue that we introduced during 21 the public scoping meeting.
The topic was organisms 22 existing under high-radiation, high-temperature conditions.
23 The concern was the possible environmental impacts 24 created by the mutation and/or escape of this type of 25 organism from extreme temperature and radiation environments
1 42 1
such as within spent fuel pools into the Chesapeake Bay.
2 The concept was discussed with microbiologists 3
that specialize in extremophile research, and these 4
specialists concluded that there is little potential for 5
detrimental population increases of these extremophiles in 6
the environment, partly because organisms associated with 7
thermal waters are likely to die if transferred into much l
8 colder waters such as those associated with Chesapeake Bay.
9 Additionally, they would be unlikely to be able to compete 10 with the indigenous micro-biota within the bay.
The 11 extremophiles -- they determined that these extremophiles 12 are unlikely to pose a hazard to human health.
Based on the 13 specialists' analysis, the staff concludes that this issue, 14 while new to NRC's analysis of license renewal issues, does 15 not meet the significant information standard.
j 16 Next slide, please.
17 Moving on to chapter five, this covers the 18 environmental impacts of postulated accidents and includes 19 the design-basis accidents and severe accidents.
20 The design basis-accidents for which a plant is 21 specifically designed to withstand without off-site releases 22 are a Category 1 issue and determined to be of small 23 significance for all plants.
No new and significant 24 information was found in this analysis.
25 Therefore, the staff concludes there are no I
43 1
impacts of design-basis accidents beyond those discussed in 2
the GEIS.
3 The environmental impact of severe accidents was 4
determined to be a Category 2 issue.
Although the 5
Commission found that the projected impacts of accidents 6
defined by NRC as severe are small for all plants, 7
alternatives to mitigate severe accidents must be considered 8
for plants that have not formally considered such 9
alternatives.
10 A discussion of the severe accident mitigation 11 alternatives, dubbed SAMAs, will be discussed later by NRC's 12 Bob Palla.
13 Next slide, please.
14 Chapter six covers the impacts from the uranium 15 fuel cycle and solid waste management.
16 Category 1 issues applicable to the operation of 17 Calvert Cliffs include the following:
off-site radiological 18 impacts to the individual, collective off-site radiological 19 impacts, non-radiological impacts of the uranium fuel cycle, 20 low-level waste storage and disposal, mixed waste storage 21 and disposal, on-site spent fuel, and non-radioactive waste.
22 These issues are important to all of us and have 23 been evaluated in the GEIS.
Because there was no new 24 information that NRC became aware of during the review 25 process, NRC adopts the GEIS conclusions, the category one
ee 1
issues on these for Calvert Cliffs.
2 Category 2 issue that is potentially applicable to 3
Calvert Cliffs is the transportation of radiological waste.
4 This issue has two elements.
5 The first element is -- requires a review of the 6
effects of transportation of fuel and waste consistent with 7
the approach identified in 10 CFR 51.52.
That particular 8
analysis is called the environmental effects of 9
transportation of fuel and waste, and there's a table, S-1, 10 you may hear about.
11 The impacts identified in Table -- excuse me --
12 S-4 -- impacts identified in Table S-4 are valid if a 13 licensee meets all of the critoria outlined.
14 Part of these criteria relate to fuel enrichment 15 and fuel burn-up.
NRC determined that the environmental 16 impacts from Calvert Cliffs' fuel enrichment and fuel 17 burn-up meet the criteria and the environmental impacts are 18 unchanged or reduced from those summarized in Table S-4.
19 Therefore, no additional analysis is required for this 20 element of the issue.
21 Now, there's a second element of the issue, and 22 that is the discussion of the generic and cumulative impacts 23 associated with transportation operation in the vicinity of 24 a high-level waste repository site.
25 However, analysis of this topic as a Category 2
45 1
issue comes with a big caveat.
The NRC is acting currently 2
to change the rule that caused this to be a Category 2o to 3
make it a Category 1 issue, and I'm not sure I said that 4
quite right.
I'll have Don Cleary clarify if I didn't state 5
it correctly.
6 The -- there's a proposed rule, came out in 7
February 1999, that would change the categorization of this 8
to a Category 1 issue so that plants wouldn't have to deal 9
with it.
10 In the meantime, the applicant has the option of 11 providing a plant-specific discussion of transportation 12 operations in the vicinity of a high-level waste repository 13 site to avoid license renewal delays while awaiting final 14 publication of this rule.
15 BG&E identified no significant new issues related 16 to transportation of waste and defers to the proposed rule.
17 The proposed rule confirmed the values in the Table S-4 are 18 bounding for transportation of high-level waste in the 19 vicinity of a high-level repository.
20 The final rule is expected to be published no 21 later than August of this year and should precede 22 publication of Calvert Cliffs's final SEIS.
23 Next slide, please.
On, excuse me.
I've got one 24 more issue here to go.
25 Chapter seven relates to plant decommissioning u
4G 1
from continued plant operation during the renewal term.
I'm 2
not sure exactly how that works, but in any -- anyway, we're 3
looking at decommissioning following license renewal, the 4
environmental impacts of decommissioning following license q
l 5
renewal-l 6
This is a Category 1 issue, and there are no 7
significant new issues identified in terms of 8
decommissioning.
There were no Category 2 issues related to 9
decommissioning-Therefore, this is a very short chapter.
10 11 Next slide, please.
12 Okay.
Let me -- let's summarize the impacto of 13 license renewal, of plant operations during the renewal 14 term, as identified in our preliminary analysis.
There were 15 no significant new information -- or there was no 16 significant new information identified by the applicant, the 17 public, or the staff.
It was concluded that the impacts for 18 category one issues were bounded by the analysis presented 19 in the GEIS.
20 Now, let's look at the next slide; we'll come back 21 to this one.
22 Table 9-1 in the SEIS includes most of the 23 information on this and the next few tables you'll see.
24 What we've done here is we have showed the significance of 25 the various issues by topic of the proposed action, which is
47 1
2 So, what we see here from land use, ecology, water 3
quality and use, air quality, waste, human health, 4
socio-economics, aesthetics, archaeology and historical 5
resources and environmental justice -- we found there was a 6
small significance of the impacts of license renewal from 7
all of these areas.
8 Okay.
Let's return to the slide we had.
9 With that in mind, I'll make this statement here.
10 Our preliminary analysis identified that the impacts for 11 Category 2 issues were of small significance and would 12 require no additional mitigation.
13 Also mention again we are cognizant of the Federal 14 wildlife -- Fish & Wildlife Service's recommendation.
15 We're going to go quickly through the next three 16 slides.
17 As part of the NEPA process, we looked at the 18 unavoidable adverse impacts of license renewal, came up with 19 three small ones, small impacts of what we're talking about.
20 We're going to have a continuation of the draw-down of the 21 wells off-site, continued loss of fish and shellfish through 22 normal loss in entrainment and impingement, and the housing 23 and traffic impact from an additional set of employees would 24 again contribute to potential adverse impacts of this 25 renewal.
However, again, these are small impacts.
1
48 1
Let's go to the next one, please.
2 Irreversible or irretrievable resource commitments 3
-- probably any power source you're looking at is going to 4
have something like this or related to the irreversible or 5
irretrievable resources.
6 The first item, materials and equipment required l
l 7
to maintain operations -- mainly, your construction l
8 materials and just your general equipment.
9 This one is specific to the nuclear plant, we've 10 got nuclear fuel here, and I said permanent storage space 11 for spent fuel assemblies.
This is for an eventual 12 repository.
This is not on-site.
l 13 Next one, please.
14 And finally, looking at short-term uses versus 15 long-term productivity, you currently have a situation where 16 the balance of these things, the environmental balance is 17 quite stable, well established, and if you extend operations 18 through the license renewal term, it would most likely 19 extend the time that this balance continued to exist.
20 Now, looking at the balance from another angle, if 21 you continue operations through the renewal term, it would 22 delay the alternative use of the site for whatever positive or negative possibilities might exist there.
23 1
24 Next slide, please.
25 Another part of a NEPA analysis requires an j
l
49 1
evaluation of alternatives.
There are nearly limitless 2
possible energy sources and mixes of energy sources.
So, we 3
had to limit -- we limited the -- this analysis as defined 4
in the GEIS to those imminently reasonable of demonstrated 1
5 capability and with sufficient generating capacity to 6
replace plant power generation.
7 For generating capacity comparison, let me remind 8
me you, Calvert Cliffs has a design rating for net 9
electrical output of 845 megawatts for each of its two 10 units.
11 A number of alternatives were considered and i
12 rejected because they could not provide sufficient power to 13 replace Calvert Cliffs.
These include solar, wind, biomass, l
14 conservation and energy efficiency, geo-thermal, and fuel 15 cells.
16 Now, there actually are several others that are 17 all in the GEIS that we looked at, as well.
18 We can't project too far in the future to know 19 what might be actually available at the time, but if we're 20 planning for a mix in the future, again these cannot provide 21 sufficient power to replace the capacity offered by Calvert 22 Cliffs.
23 Imported power was also considered, but it shows 24 no particular advantages; it just shifts the burden to other 25 locations.
50 1
So, in the final analysis, we considered the 2
proposed action, the no-action alternative, in which case 3
you would have either a situation where you'.ve got license 4
-- or denial of license renewal or a withdrawal of the 5
application, and two serious alternatives, coal-fired power 6
generation and gas-fired power generation.
7 Next slide, please.
8 The projected environmental impacts resulting from 9
the no-action alternative are summarized in this table.
The 10 impacts to the aquatic and terrestrial environments are 11 believed to be relatively small.
The impacts on the human 12 population may vary considerably from small to moderate or 13 large, depending on succeeding property uses and management 14 following the current term.
15 I took some heat on using the small -- or the 16 inclusion of small in the socio-economics here.
Kind of 17 depends on what would replace Calvert Cliffs.
That's why we 18 have -- what could replace it at the time.
But anyway, 19 there would be certainly a significant impact to the local 20 economy with the shutdown of Calvert Cliffs or the denial of 21 the license renewal.
22 Next one, please.
23 The environmental significance of coal-fired 24 generation is contrasted with the proposed action and the 25 no-action alternative.
51 1
We further defined coal-fired generation as being 2
either at the Calvert Cliffs site, somewhere on-site, so 3
that very little land would have to be disturbed, or at a 4
green-field site, someplace new, where you would have to be 5
starting probably from a fairly large land disturbance.
6 Our best projections are that the significance of 7
the resulting environmental effects would be smaller from 8
siting the land -- the plant within the confines of the 9
current site.
The significant levels could vary from small 10 to large.
11 Ground water usage, air quality, and increase 12 solid wastes are projected to be particularly significant.
13 Socio-economic aspects could vary considerably.
14 In most cases, the effects created with a 15 green-field site would be larger than those of the existing 16 site.
Part of this increase would result from a greater 17 land disturbance and of upset of the existing ecological 18 balance.
19 Now, I don't show it on the table, but we also 20 compared the. environmental impacts of once-through cooling, 21 the current system used at Calvert Cliffs, with closed-cycle 22 cooling with -- using cooling towers.
23 The most likely changes created by a cooling tower 24 scenario are minor to moderate changes in land use, minor 25 changes to terrestrial and aquatic ecological systems, and a 1
I
52 1
minor change in surface water quality.
2 Next slide, please.
3 This is actually the second half of the slide we 4
were just looking at and gives you the human health, 5
socio-economics, aesthetics, archaeological, and 6
environmental justice impacts.
7 Next one, please.
8 The next two slides would summarize the impacts of 9
gas-fired power generation and again compare it with license
{
10 renewal.
I i
11 Little change in impacts are projected for land 12 use, ecology, or water use and water quality resulting from I
13 this alternative at the current site.
A moderate impact is 14 projected for air quality.
15 Socio-economic aspects could vary from small to 16 moderate, depending on employment after completion of 17 plant's construction.
18 Again, the impacts would be larger at a 19 green-field site, although probably not quite as large as 20 those of siting a coal plant at a new site.
21 We again looked at the closed-cycle cooling tower 22 optior. for cooling here and found we had essentially the j
23 same impacts as would occur to support the coal-fired plant.
24 Okay.
I 25 We've summarized the environmental impacts of the
53 1
proposed action, the no-action alternative, coal-fired 2
generation alternative at a current and a green-field site, 3
gas-fired power generation alternative at a current and a 4
green-field site, and -- as well as evaluating the impacts 5
of changing from the once-through cooling system to a 6
cooling toward closed-cycle cooling system.
7 Now we want to -- oh, do we want to stop here
-8 before we head on into the chapter five SAMA analysis?
9 MR. CAMERON:
Yes, I think that might be useful, 10 just to see if anybody has any questions for Mary Ann on the 11 material that she covered or any comments, clarifications.
12 Anybody out there have a question before we move on to 13 severe accidents?
14 All right.
Well, great.
Thank you, Mary Ann.
15 And let's go to Bob for severe accidents.
16 MR. PALLA:
Good evening.
My name is Bob Palla.
17 I'm with the Probabilistic Safety Assessment Branch in the 18 Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation of NRC.
I'm the lead 19 technical reviewer on the area of cavere accident mitigation 20 alternatives.
21 I will be briefly describing the search for 22 cost-beneficial alternatives for further reducing risk that 23 was performed as part of the license renewal activity.
24 Just as -- to back up very slightly, let me just 25 mention about severe accidents themselves, not the design I
54 1
alternative aspect but severe accidents.
2 Severe accidents are a class of accidents in which 3
the reactor core is damaged primarily due to a failure of 4
core cooling systems.
5 This would generally involve multiple failures of 6
hardware and generally, you know, human errors of some sort 7
in addition to that, and these types of accidents are 8
captured in the probabilistic safety assessment studies for 9
the plant, and that study forms the basis for the severe 10 accident studies and the studies of severe accident l
11 mitigation alternatives.
l l
12 Now, with regard to severe accidents and the level 13 of risk that's posed to the public from severe accidents, we 14 looked at, within the generic environmental impact 15 statement, the risk that would be associated with these 16 accidents at each site.
17 So, what was done is the site-specific 18 characteristics were assembled, including site-specific 19 population, meteorology, and so on, those kind of factors 20 that influence the off-site doses.
21 We projected the severe accident releases in a 22 manner consistent with what was done in a NRC study that's 23 frequently referred to as the NUREG-1150 reactor study, and j
24 we ran off-site consequence calculations using the latest 25 codes and looked at various release paths, such as airborne l
l l
l
55 1
releases, ground water releases, and a number of other 2
release paths, and looking across the spectrum of plants, 3
the conclusion was reached that the probability-weighted 4
consequences of severe accidents is small, and it's small at 5
all plants.
6 So, on that basis, the issue of severe accidents 7
was judged to be a category one issue, and we did not 8
discuss severe accidents themselves as part of the license 9
renewal.
)
10 There was one part of severe accidents that was 11 referred to as a category two issue.
12 In essence, what Part 51 of the regulations says 13 is it requires the NRC staff to consider alternatives for 14 mitigating severe accidents at the plant if the staff has 15 not previously considered severe accident mitigation 16 alternatives in an environmental impact statement, and that j
17 is the case at Calvert Cliffs, so we looked at that here as 18 part of renewal.
19 So, basically, we didn't re-look at risk itself, 20 but what vna did look at is ways that the existing risk 21 profile, the residual risk, could be further reduced, and 22 that's the focus of what I'm going to speak to right now.
23 The purpose of this evaluation was to ensure that 24 plant design changes, be it hardware, be it procedural, 25 whatever it might be that could further reduce risk, is
I 56 1
identified and assessed, and what we did is relied heavily 2
on the plant-specific risk study as a source of information 3
as to where the risk is coming from at the plant, and in I
l 4
addition to looking at plant-specific insights, 5
consideration was also given to insights that came from 6
generic studies that may have been performed for other 7
plants, perhaps plants with other containment types, but 8
nevertheless insights that could assist this process.
l 9
We included the identification and evaluation of l
l 10 alternatives that either prevented the risk -- prevented the
]
11 severe accident itself or a separate category of 12 enhancements that we refer to as mitigative would improve 13 the ability to prevent the release of core damage fission 14 products.
j 15 So, we either prevent core damage or we reduce the 1
16 consequences of a core damage event should it occur, and 17 we're looking for all those -- it's all-encompassing, this 18 search.
It does not try to just focus on mitigation 19 alternatives.
20 It looks very, you know, heavily into prevention, 21 as well as mitigation.
l 22 Next slide.
23 I'm going to describe very briefly the process, 24 because this is very much process-driven, and it follows, in 25 essence, the logic that -- you try to find out where the
57 1
risk is coming from in -- at -- and what we did is, as I 2
mentioned, we used the plant-specific risk study, was the 3
most recent version of the Calvert Cliffs study, which is 4
termed the individual plant examination.
5 It included the study that was done for 6
internally-initiated events as well a part of the study that 7
looks at the risk from externally-initiated events, such as 8
fire events, seismic events.
9 We looked at_the full spectrum of risk and where 10 it was coming from, and then, the next step is to identify 11 design improvements that could further reduce the risk, and 12 these -- again, the individual plant examination was an 13 important source of potential improvements as well as some 14 other generic risk studies that led -- you know, provided 15 some additional insights into this.
16 Over 100 alternatives were identified and were
)
17 subsequently evaluated, and the evaluation process is 18 basically to assess and assign a level of risk reduction to 19 each of the alternatives and to also assign a approximate 20 cost for each one.
21 Then you would convert the risk reduction --
22 essentially convert it into dollars to make a comparison of 23 the benefits of the risk reduction compared against the
)
24 cost, and there was a multiple-step process that was done to j
i 25 screen this 100-plus, you know, set of alternatives down to
58 1
a more manageable and more focused set, and basically, 2
improvements that were extremely expensive and the costs far 3
exceeded the benefits were eliminated.
4 On the other end of the spectrum, enhancements 5
that did not significantly reduce risk were also eliminated, 6
and in a subsequent phase of the screening process, more 7
realistic risk reduction estimates were developed and 8
revised cost estimates were developed.
9 So, this was done in a sequential manner.
It 10 ultimately led to identification and a focusing on of l
11 approximately 20 alternatives which received an in-depth 12 evaluation, and then what was done -- and this is alluded to 13 in the last bullet, in the three sub-items underneath there 14
-- the final screening was basically a determination as to 15 whether the implementation of these alternatives would be 16.
justified, and what we look for is alternatives that would I
17 provide a substantial reduction in total risk, and this 18 would be, for example, something that would reduce risk on 19 the order of, you know, several percent, at least.
20 We weren't looking for things that were reducing 21 risk by only a fraction of a percent or 1 percent or 2; 22 we're looking for things -- 10, 20, 30 percent, if there was 23 such a thing.
24 Reductions in core damage frequency on the order 25 of one times 10 to the minus five would generally be -- per
l 59 l l
1 year -- would be considered to be significant.
)
)
2 So, the first criteria is significant reduction in l
3 risk.
4 The second criteria, favorable value-impact ratio.
i f
5 We want the costs to be commensurate with the risk j
\\
6 reduction.
We don't want to pursue alternatives that were l
7 unduly expensive.
)
8 So, that's what the value-impact ratio does, is j
9 focus on those alternatives that, in effect, give you the j
i 10 biggest bang for the buck in terms of reducing risk for the i
i 11 dollars spent.
12 And then finally -- and I'll talk about this more i
13 in a moment -- the risk reduction should be associated with j
1 14 aging effects during a period of extended plant operation, j
15 and the thinking there -- and let me just -- I'll expand on 16 that in a moment, but what we want to do is -- this
{
17 environmental assessment is essentially looking at the 18 effect of extending the plant operation for another 20 l
19 years, and what we were trying to do here is focus on those 20 alternatives that would, in effect, be driven and driven by 21 aging effects.
I'll come back to that in a short moment.
i 22 Let's go to the next slide.
23 I'll summarize the results of the SAMA evaluation.
24 The SAMA process led to the identification of one i
25 improvement that was selected for implementation by BG&E.
i l
1 a
60 1
This involves the installation of a water-tight door that 2
reduces the risk from internal flooding events.
3 It's a reduction in total core damage frequency of 4
approximately 5 percent, and BGE has committed to pursue 5
this under~their corrective action program.
6 Now, moving on, there were several other SAMAs 7
that we identified, and as costed, the way that we do cost 8
analysis following the regulatory analysis guidelines, j
9 several additional alternatives appear to meet the 10 cost-benefit -- the criteria and be worthy of further 11 consideration, and I just want to point out that the rules 12 of doing these analyses, the assumptions that are made are 13 not universally accepted, but we did this assessment using 14 NRC-approved guidelines.
15 We did find three alternatives that look like 16 they're worth doing, but as I pointed out on a previous 17 slide, we're looking for things that are aging-related, and 18 none of these three alternatives, in fact, met that 19 criteria.
20 All of the remaining enhancements either had a 21 very small or negative value or offered only minimal risk l
22 reduction, so none of those were pursued, 23 I want to just speak very briefly about these 24 tnree alternatives that are still on the table, in our view.
25 As I mentioned, the environmental impact statement l
l
[
61 1
is. narrowly focused on the impact of extending the operating 2'
license another 20 years.
3 Operation for the remainder of the current license 4
is addressed by the previous environmental impact statement, 5.
by prior staff reviews, and by ongoing regulatory oversight 6
of utility operations.
7 Now, there's a presumption that we're making that 8
the current level of risk at the plant will be acceptable, 9
is acceptable, or would be made acceptable if a risk outlier 10 was found, such that, when you came to the end of the plant 11 license, the current license, and went into renewal, the 12 only issues that you would have would be any -- things that i
13 are aging-related.
14 The judgement that we made concerning the 15 implementation of these SAMAs was that it was more 16 appropriate to deal with these as an issue under the current 17 operating license rather than as a license renewal issue.
18 The thinking for that is twofold.
19 If a SAMA is cost-beneficial -- let me just back i
20 up.
I think you can disposition the SAMAs into either of 21 two categories, and these are the categories.
22 If the SAMA is cost-beneficial and relates to 23 aging, then the SAMA would be implemented as part of license 24 renewal.
25 Implementation would be completed prior to the
i.
62 1
renewal period, but this could conceivably be 15 years from 2
now, because if it's aging-related, it doesn't -- it's not 3
really relevant until the end of the current operating 4
license.
5 So, one option is to pursue it as part of renewal i
l 6
but potentially defer it for 15 years.
7 The second criteria is, if the SAMA is 8-cost-beneficial but does not relate to aging, the SAMA would i
9 not be required as part of license renewal, but what we 10 would do is consider it for implement'ation under the current 11 license, and what we have initiated at the NRC is a program 12 that we refer to as the individual plant examination 13 follow-up program.
14 It's an activity where we will be looking at 15 plant-specific risk studies to identify plants that have 16 core damage frequencies that are at the high end of the 17 spectrum and try to better understand what's driving those 18 core damage frequency estimates and to further examine 19 potential fixes for those plants and perhaps to require 20 implementation of improvements if it's judged to be 21 warranted.
22 What we intend to do is to take these alternatives 23 that I mentioned previously and consider them under a 24 program such as that.
25 So, while we're not pursuing these as part of e
3 1-license renewal doesn't mean that we've turned our heads and 2
we're forgetting about them.
We do intend to pick them up 3
as part of this other program.
4 So, with that, I can just go to the last slide.
5 The overall conclusion insofar as license renewal 6
is concerned is that additional plant modifications to 7
further mitigate severe accidents are not required as part 8
of renewal, but as I mentioned, these several other 9
alternatives we will be pursuing separately as part of this 10 other activity.
11 That's it.
12 MR. CAMERON:
Any questions for Bob on the SAMAs?
13 I think he explained pretty well that 3tst part about how 14 the SAMAs that are not aging-related.
going to be dealt i
15
- with, i
16 All right.
17 Well, we have a concluding presentation, very 18 short now, sort of what the schedule is, by Tom Kenyon, and 19 then we want to go out to you for some comments and 20 statements.
21 MR. KENYON:
The next few set of slides are going 22 to be our -- discuss our overall conclusions.
23 To summarize, the supplement one to the GEIS 24 contains our preliminary conclusions regarding the results 25 of our environmental review, and if you did not yet request
64 1
a copy of the SEIS from the NRC, there are extra copies in 2
the back.
You can take them with you, if you wish.
3 Supplement one can also be viewed at the NRC's 4
public document room in Washington, D.C.,
and in the local 5
public document room over in Prince Frederick, Maryland.
6 Additional copies can be obtained from the Government 7
Printing Office, and we even have them on a web-site, on our 8
web-site.
9 Information about the location of the public 10 document room and the web-site and where you can get 11 information is on an information sheet that we have in the 12 back of the room.
13 This second bullet is just to remind you that the 14 decision to renew the license is based on several reviews, l
15 not only the environmental review but also on the safety i
16 review that Mr. Grimes' staff is performing.
17 Next slide, please.
18 Now, the staff, as you've heard today, has based 19 its preliminary conclusions on a number of inputs, including 20 the findings in the GEIS, the environmental report that was 21 submitted by BGE, consultations with the state, local, and 22 Federal agencies, and also through our independent review, 23 which included the results of the scoping process, that 24 included the considere.tions of the public comments that we 25 got, received from the public last year.
65 1
Next slide, please.
2 And this leads us to the staff's overall 3
preliminary conclusions, that the adverse environmental 4
impacts of license renewal for Calvert Cliffs nuclear power 5
plant are not so great that preserving the option of license 6
renewal for energy planning decision-makers would be 7
unreasonable.
8 Now, that gives you our preliminary conclusions, 9
but we're still looking for inputs from members of the i
10 public on our review.
I 11 Next slide, please.
)
12 As I said earlier, the NEPA process has provided 13 two opportunities for the public to participate in the 14 environmental review on Calvert Cliffs.
There was the 15 public comment period last year during the scoping process 16 and now there is the comment period that we are currently 17 in.
18 Also as I've said earlier, the NRC has extended 19 the comment period by 30 days, and the comment period for 20 Calvert Cliffs ends on May 20, 1999.
21 After the comment period ends, the staff will i
22 assess the comments that we received and determine whether 23 or not they are applicable to the environmental aspects of 24 license renewal.
25 Again, as we did with the issues that were
i; 66 1
received during the scoping process, if the issues do not 2
-have a bearing on the decision to renew the license, they'll 3
be referred to the appropriate NRC programs.
4 Next' slide, please.
15 And this slide is to give you some information 6
about our review schedule.
7 As I said earlier, the comment period ends on Ma~y 8
20th, and after that, we will sort the comments and evaluate 9
them, and if appropriate, we may decide that the comments 10 le5d us to decide that the -- it needs -- may need to modify 11 the environmental impact statement, and once we do that, 12 we'll issue the final supplement to the generic 13 environmental impact statement for Calvert Cliffs, which is E14 currently scheduled to be issued in November.
I 15 In the final version of supplement one, the staff 16 will identify the public comments that were received on the 17 draft in our Appendix A of the document, and we'll document 18 how the comments were dispositioned, and so the final 19 document will contain a listing of all your comments and 20 where they are addressed in the supplement and will tell you 21 how we addressed your comments.
22 Last slide,_please.
l 23 The last slide gives you my phone number.
I am i
i 24 the agency point of contact for the environmental portion of 25 the review.
l l
67 1
All of the documents that we spoke about today are 2
located at the public document room in Washington or the 3
local public document room in Prince Frederick, and comments 4
can be submitted in writing by mail or in person or by 5
'e-mail at that address 6
Like I said earlier, there's an information sheet 7
in the back that will give you the details on how to submit 8
comments or get information.
9 And in summary, I v? ant to thank you for attending 10 today's meeting.
It has been a long meeting, but it is 11 still an important part of the overall license renewal 12 process.
13 It's important that you participate, because it 14 makes for a better process in us doing our review, and with 15 that, that ends my -- our formal presentation.
16 Chip?
17 MR. CAMERON:
Any questions on schedule or where 18 to file' comments?
19 I guess I did have one for Tom and Chris.
20 Tom, you indicated that the final EIS would be 21 done in November, and I think, Chris, you said the revised 22 SER would be done in November.
What happens then, when 23 those two documents are final in terms of the NRC 24 decision-making process?
25 MR. GRIMES:
As soon as the staff's safety
1 68 1
' evaluation is complete, all the open items and confirmatory 2
actions have been addressed and the final environmental 3
impact statement is completed and it's published, then those 4
reports would be referred to the commission, along with the 5
recommendation I mentioned previously from the Commission's 6
Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards, and it would be 7
presented to the Commission as the safety evaluation and i
8 environmental impact conclusion, along with a proposed new 9
license for Calvert Cliffs, presuming that we work out all 10 those issues and come to affirmative conclusion.
i 11 At the same time, the regional administrator, 12 who's responsible for performing the inspection activities, 13 forwards a letter to the Commission with the results of the
{
14 inspections, what the inspectors have concluded, and the
{
15 regional administrator's recommendation concerning the 16 proposed action.
17 Assuming that all the proposals from the staff, 18 the regional administrator, and the Advisory Committee for 19 Reactor Safeguards are favorable, then the Commission would 20 be presented with a license to issue, and they would hold a
}
21 public meeting to discuss the proposal before them and to 22 invite further public comment, and after that, they go into 23 an affirmation session, where they would make a formal 24 determination with votes and comments and directions to the 25 staff if we had to change any of the provisions in the 1
I 69 l proposed license.
1 2
l I just collapsed three months worth of work down i!intoatwo-minutediscussion,butthat'sessentiallyit.
3 I
4 MR. CAMERON:
Good.
Thank you.
i 5
l Tom, do you have anything to add on that?
I 6
l MR. KENYON:
No.
I 7
l MR. CAMERON:
Okay.
1 So sometime in 2000, I guess, there will be a 8
i 9
decision, early 2000, i
10 MR. GRlMES:
That's presuming that we don't find i
l further efficiencies in the schedule.
11 We laid this schedule 12 out on a presumption that there's a certain amount of work 13 to be done in a certain amount of time.
I 14 l
We have started the ACRS reviews early, as I I
15 j mentioned.
They're going to start their meetings in April 16 rather than wait for the conclusion of the staff safety 17 evaluation.
l So, we're running even more and more of our 18 19 activities in parallel in order to improve on timeliness and 20 efficiency of the review process, and so, it's conceivable 21 that we'll pull back on those dates if we find that we 22 finish the work sooner and accomplish the required actions 23 to complete a final safety evaluation and a final l
l 24 environmental impact statement.
25 It may be that we're ready with a proposal for --
l 1
l l
I l
l 70 j
1 to the Commission shortly after the completion of the 2
environmental impact report if we complete the safety 3
evaluation action sooner.
4 So, we're going to reconsider the November date 5
probably around July, and then, if we pull back on the 6
schedules, we'll publish revised schedules showing what the 7
targets are.
l 8
Right now, in the report to Congress that we have, j
9 it'shows the decision on the license -- on the Calvert 10 Cliffs renewed license by May of the year 2000, but we've 11 already identified at least a one-month improvement on that j
1 1
12 schedule, and we'll probably improve on it even further.
13 MR. CKKERON:
Great.
Thank you.
14 I'd like to go to the audience for some comment 15 right now, and we have Linda Kelley with us, who's president 16 of the Board of Calvert County Commissioners.
17 Linda, you can stay there or you can come up here, l
18 whatever makes you feel more comfortable.
l l
19 MS. KELLEY:
Good evening.
l l
20.
I'm not a geologist, I am not an ecologist, and I l
21 know nothing about electro-magnetic fields.
I am the 22 president of the Board of County Commissioners of Calvert 23 County, and I thank you for being here this evening, for 24 conducting this session, and for allowing me to speak to 25 you.
1 I
L L
71 L
1 Obviously, a lot of time and effort has gone.into l
2 this, and on the behalf of the citizens of Calvert County, 3
we thank.you~for your. efforts on our behalf.
4 It is.truly a pleasure and a privilege for me to 5
. speak on behalf of BG&E and Calvert Cliffs.
I'm not here to 6
discuss technical issues.
I'm here to discuss why the Board 7
of-County Commissioners fully supports the license renewel.
8 Calvert Cliffs is of vital importance to this 9
' community.
BGE has been one of the driving forces that 10 allowed this county to obtain the level of service that l
11 continues to increase the quality of life for our citizens.
12 Before Calvert Cliffs, Calvert County was one of 13 the poorest counties in the State of Maryland.
In 1975, 14 when the plant opened, that turned around dramatically.
15 BGE brought Calvert new opportunities, including 16 significant increases in employment, tax revenue, which 17 translated.to new schools, parks, staff, and other 18 attractions, but-they also brought other components to our 19 community.
20 Their employees show up in our fire and rescue 1
21 squads, volunteer programs, schools, churches, and their 22 charitable contributions to the southern Maryland community 23 has exceeded $1 million a year since locating here.
24 It is true that Calvert Cliffs is one of our two 25 largest employers and the largest private employer in 1
72 1
southern Maryland.
2 It is true that they employ 1,150 of our citizens, 3
and it is true that they have been our largest taxpayer, 4
paying 19 1/2 million in 1997 alone, almost 20 percent of 5
our base.
Of course, with deregulation, that's about to 6
change, but we still like the fact that they are here.
7 Calvert Cliffs, however, has proven to be more to 8
the county than just a large taxpayer and employer.
They 9
are a proven community member with a remarkable safety 10 record, a steward of the environment, and continued 11 supporter of our local business community.
12 BGE contributes over -- between one and two 13 million dollars a year in contracts to the southern Maryland 14 community and economy.
15 BGE owns and maintains about 2,300 acres, of which 16 2,000 acres are maintained as a wildlife preserve, thus 17 protecting the bay shoreline from development, and as was 18 noted in your study, we have had the crush of accelerated 19 growth.
20 So, when we look at that as a preserved area that 21 is not going to grow houses but, rather, a wildlife habitat, 22 that is something that we very much appreciate.
23 As far as we know, there's never been a negative 24 environmental impact with their presence, and environmental 25 impact is very, very important to his county.
Preserva' ion
1 73 1
and the environment are of paramount importance to the 2
county, its citizens, and the county government.
3 We're sitting out here on this piece of dirt 4
that's eight miles wide and 40 miles long surrounded by 5
water.
So, obviously, that is one of our primary 6
considerations.
7 BGE has been a wonderful steward of the property 8
which they hold in Calvert County.
9 We have two major environmental research 10 facilities here, as you know, the National Academy of 11 Sciences and Chesapeake Biological Lab, both of which 12 support license renewal.
3 13 In almost 25 years of operation, no environmental 14 harm that we are aware of has been detected within the 15 aquatic environment of the Chesapeake Bay.
Indeed, the 16 puritan tiger beetle is alive and well.
17 Calvert Cliffs helps keep our air clean.
18 Operating a nuclear facility as opposed to the fossil fuel 19 plant is of benefit.
20 If you ask some of our residents who are near 21 Chalk Point, I think that they will tell you that that plant 22 is not nearly as clean as BG&E and a more desirable 23 neighbor.
24 BGE is also a responsible member of our community 25 and a significant contributor, as we I said before.
r.
74 1
Now, the plant's been around for a long time, I 2 -
think long enough for us to determine if there were negative 3
environmental impacts from normal daily operations.
4 What is most important today and that is simply 5
the finding that each of the. assessed environmental issues l
6 was found to have small impact on the Calvert Cliffs license 7-renewal.
8 Obviously, the safety of the plant, employees, and 9
citizens of the county must continue to remain a top 10 priority, and based on their track record, I am certain 11 those areas will continue to be a top priority.
-12 This is particularly important to us, because 42 13' percent of our population -- let me repeat that -- 42 14 percent of our population lives within that 10-mile 15 emergency evacuation zone.
16 So,<we are very much concerned about th6 safety 17 factors and safety issues and are pleased with what we see 18 so far.
19 And before I close, I would just like to say that 20 we welcome the environmental impact statement.
We know of 21' the current record of the plant and the serious commitment 22 to emergency-preparedness and plant operations, and this 23 county has-been absolutely confident what the conclusions 24 would be.
25 We regard Calvert Cliffs as a friend, partner, and
75 1
asset to the community and fully support the re-licensing of 2
the Calvert' Cliffs plant.
3' Once again, I thank you very much for the 4
opportunity to address you and wish you all a safe trip 5
home.
6 MR. CAMERON:
Thank you very much, President 7
Kelley.
8
[ Applause.)
9 MR. CAMERON:
How about George Klein?
10 MR. KLEIN: 'My name is George Klein.
I'm here 11 representing the Calvert County Waterman's Association.
We 12 fully back the renewed license of BG&E.
13 I am also'a commercial waterman for the last 25 14 years.
I have worked-in front of the power plant over the 15 years, and I see no impact.of any kind of controversial 16 against the crabs or the fish.
As you can see, it hasn't J
17 hurt me nary a bit eating them.
j l
18 I'm also the owner of Tall's Tackle Shop & Crab 19 House in Chesapeake Beach, and BG&E has given the fishermen i
20.
a whole lot of hope with the washout they have down there.
21 Seventy percent of our fishermen head that way when they 22 leave the harbor.
So, it hasn't put no bad impact on them.
23 So, we are backing it 100 percent for the renewal.
24 MR. CAMERON: 'Thank you, Mr. Klein.
25 (Applause.)
76 1
MR. CAMERON:
Mr. Allhoff.
2 Okay.
I think we have Mr. Allhoff's comments for 3
the record at any rate.
4 Mr. Graf is still here, isn't he?
There he is.
5 MR. GRAF:
I made my comments for the record this 6
afternoon.
7 MR. CAMERON:
Okay.
Thanks, Mr. Graf.
8 David Jenkins.
9 Hi, David.
10 MR. JENKINS:
Again, David Jenkins, the Director 11 of the Tri-County Council for Southern Maryland.
12 Again, I was here earlier this afternoon and 13 provided verbal testimony and again would offer support from 14 the Tri-Cou. sty Council for Southern Maryland for the license 15 renewal.
16 Again, the council consists of all the elected 17 officials of southern Maryland, and BG&E has been a 18 responsible corporate neighbor for both Calvert County as 19
'well as the Tri-County Council area -- that is, Charles, St.
20 Mary's, and Calvert county -- and both from a corporate 21 neighbor contributing to the community as well as an 22 environmental steward of the area.
i 23 So, I would again provide that comment to you and 24 again thank you for the opportunity to be here tonight.
25 Thank you, t
77 1
MR. CAMERON:
Okay.
Thank you, David.
2
[ Applause.]
3 MR. CAMERON:
Angie Howard.
l 4
MS. HOWARD:
If I may turn back this way, I also
]
5 was here this afternoon and made a statement for the record, j
6 but for Mr. Klein and Madam Chair, just a point that -- I'm i
7 Angie Howard.
i 8
I represent the Nuclear Energy Institute, which 9
represents the nuclear energy industry throughout this 10 country, and I was here to tell the folks that this is a 11 very important thing for the nuclear industry.
12 Nuclear power represents 20 percent of the 13 electricity in this country.
It does so without emitting 14 greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, and it's a very 15 important part of our present contribution and a very 16 important part in the future.
17 We must be able to meet clean aii standards so 18 that we can continue join not only what we have here in 19 Maryland and Calvert County but around the country.
So, 20 it's very important.
21 My written statement also talked about the 22 extensive comment period and public involvement that the 23 Nuclear Regulatory Commission has included as a part of the 24 entire process of developing the license renewal process and 25 how we've gone through that, and there's been extensive
78 1
public input and involvement like the meetings here but also 2
throughout the whole process, and so, that's there, as well, 3
and if you have any specific questions about the nuclear l
4 industry, I'd be glad to answer them for you.
l 5
So, Chip, I'll turn it back to you.
l 6
Thank you.
7 MR. CAMERON:
Thank you, Angie.
8
[ Applause.]
9 MR. CAMERON:
And now is the moment that we have 10 been waiting for all day.
11 MR. TENORE:
I want to make just an observation as 12 an individual.
13 I happen to be the director of the Chesapeake 14 Biological Lab here in Solomons, but I speak as an 15 individual who's been here 15 years but was not here when 16 this plant was developed, and I think the process, both in 17 terms of the building of plants and what have you, although 18 we're always concerned about any impact on the environment, 19 has been a good one.
20 I think -- I know, early on, this company was very 21 responsive to some of the changes that the scientists 22 recommended early on when this plant was developed.
23 I think those recommendations were good at the 24 time, and I think they served for a better plant and one 25 that we can probably be proud of today and what have you.
79 1
So, I just wanted to mention that, in terms of the 1
2 process that this is going on, I think it's been a l
l 3
responsive company that's really been taking some of the 4
concerns that were brought up by the scientific community.
)
5 From my own expertise, I can say, certainly, that 6
the monitoring part of the environmental impact statement is 7
a strong -- has a good company that's been doing that work 8
for the academy and what have you.
9 So, I think that part of the environmental impact 10 statement is a good one.
11 Thanks a lot.
12 MR. CAMERON:
Thank you very much.
13 Bart, are you read to go?
14 MR. DOROSHUK:
Good evening.
15 I also was present earlier this afternoon, and I'm 16 going to incorporate my entire speech and remarks from 17 earlier.
l 18 I'm going to -- I'll make some abbreviated 19 comments and hopefully conclude with what we tried to do 20 before, but for the record, my name is Bart Doroshuk and I'm 4
21 the director of the Life Cycle Management Project at the.
22 Calvert Cliffs nuclear power plant, and I'm responsible for 23 producing the application that we're reviewing.
24 I represent that Baltimore Gas & Electric Company j
l 25 at these U.S. NRC meetings, and the purpose of this meeting i
1
e 80 1
is for the NRC to offer another public opportunity to 2
participate in the relicensing of Calvert Cliffs nuclear j
3 power plant.
i 4
As we have heard, this particular opportunity in j
)
5 the process is to provide NRC with any comments on the i
6 supplement environmental impact statement for Calvert 7
Cliffs.
8 On behalf of BGE and the Calvert Cliffs family of 9
approximately 2,000 men and women who work at the plant, let 10 me express my thanks for the opportunity to make a statement J
)
11 regarding the environmental impact of license renewal for
]
12 Calvert Cliffs.
13 Tonight I will discuss briefly the findings of the 14 U.S. NRC regarding the environmental effects of relicensing, 15 and hopefully, I believe we have arranged for the plant to 16 make a few statements on its own.
We tried earlier but had 17 a no-show, but I think it's here tonight.
18 Those of you who were here last July heard me 19 discuss the conclusions of BGE's own environmental review 20 and some of the facts surrounding our decision to submit an 21 application for license renewal.
22 Some of the facts support our conclusion that it 23 just makes good sense to continue to operate Calvert Cliffs.
24 After we've looked at all the scientific data from J
25 Baltimore Gas & Electric to the National Academies of
81 1
Science to Pacific Northwest Lab to the NRC and we've taken 2
into account all of the information about all the 3
alternatives, we continue to believe that it makes good 4
sense to maintain the balance and the equilibrium that Mary 5
Ann talked about earlier between the plant, the air, the 6
bay, and the land.
7 The report does provide summary tables, and I'd 8
like to point out that it does -- it reports that the 9
environmental impact of license renewal is recognized as 10 small in all categories, and I'd like to reread what small 11 means, because I think it's very important.
)
12 Small is defined as the environmental effects are 13 not detectable or they are so minor that they will neither 14 de-stabilize nor noticeably alter any attribute of the 15 resource that surrounds us.
In simple terms, this means 16 there are no environmental impacts.
17 The environment around us is a complex one, and we 18 believe and Baltimore Gas & Electric believes that change 19 should be carefully considered.
20 After all of the studies and considerations that 21 go into it, we think it makes good sense to maintain this 22 equilibrium I spoke about.
23 The consistent conclusion from all the reviews, 24 assessments, and evaluations is compelling.
The continued 25 operation of Calvert Cliffs beyond the original license
82 1
periods will provide the people of Maryland with a safe and 2
reliable source of energy.
3 The continued operation of Calvert Cliffs will 4
continue to contribute to the environment by striking that 5
careful balance between clean air.and a stable energy 6
supply.
7 The continued operation of Calvert Cliffs will 8
continue to provide an economic stability to Maryland and to 9
BGE.
10 We've spent the last four hours this afternoon, an 11 hour-and-a-half tonight, talking about something that's not 32 in the room.
So, as part of these remarks, I'd like to 13 yield the rest of my time to Calvert Cliffs.
14 I assume we have the lens covers off, the switches 15 are ready, and Mr. Sulu, take us out there somewhere.
H16 (Video presentation.]
17 MR. CAMERON:
Thank you very much, Bart.
Do you 18 have any concluding remarks?
19 MR. DOROSHUK:
Yes.
I just wanted to thank 20 Calvert Cliffs for its' remarks.
I wanted to recognize the 21 extensive efforts that the NRC is conducting and has 22 conducted, as well as the laboratories.
I think your teams 23 are outstanding.
24 I_ wanted to recognize and thank all of you for 25 taking.part in this process.
Speaking for the employees and
83 1
management of Calvert Cliffs, I'd like to graciously thank 2
everyone who's demonstrated their support in this 3
initiative.
4 BGE believes it just makes sense to continue to 5
preserve the safe, reliable, and environmentally sound 6
technology that Calvert Cliffs offers us.
7 Thank you, Chip.
8 MR. CAMERON:
Thank you very much, Bart.
9 I don't think we have any further questians or 10 comments out there.
So, I think I could speak for the staff 11 and P&L and say it was a real pleasure talking wi th you 12 tonight, and we're adjourned.
i 13
[Whereupon at, 9:07 p.m.,
the meeting was 14 concluded.]
15 i
16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 i
24 25
e-.---i<-,-
ew-i.-=.-
,m introduction C)
PUBLIC MEETING
- Purpose SEIS FOR COMMENT
. sta,ute,,sact,,omeo
- NEPA process f,' b, Nuclear Regulatory Commission
- Role of the GEIS 5
April 6,1999 i
i
- Review results
(
4
- Schedule g
Public comment 1
l Calvert Cliffs License Renewal CCNPP License Renewal Environmental Review Milestones
- Units I and 2 Application received - 4/98
- Operating licenses to expire in 2014 and 2016, Notice ofIntent - 6/98 respectively Scoping meeting - 7/98 i
- BGE's license renewal application includes the r Environmental Report Draft supplement to GEIS - 3/99
- Review process, contents, preliminary Comment period - 3/99-5/99 conclusions and recommendations 3
4 i
Purpose of Today's Meeting NRC Mission NRC governed by:
Present results of environmental resiew
- Discuss what the staff considered kE g'M
- Clarify issues ofinterest to assist members of the public in
> Energy Reorganization Act preparing comments
- c. National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)
- Identify whether or not an em ironmental license renewal issue was inappropriately excluded
- Accept any comments from the public 7'N
> health and safety protection I
e Inform the public of schedule and process to submit environmental protection common defense and security 6
t>
3 Y
What is License Renewal?
Purpose and Need Atomic Energy Act Renewal of an operating license
> Limits term ofl.icense
> Allows for renewal
.. to provide an opt. ion that allows for power generation capability beyond the License Renewal (10 CFR Part 54) term of a current nuclear power plant
> Operate an additional 20 vears bevond current operating license to meet future system license term generating needs..."
> NRC review
> Public participation g7ggmyg,sgi,-
> Commission decision 7
8 4
NEPA Process License Renewal Process
~EE Z~~~
~~
- NEPA requires Federal agencies to use a systematic approach to consider environmental 0% _
impacts
-. Q.*. -
~q
~ ~ - -
... C
- Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is 7%
W required for major federal actions significantly
%71-* =
affecting the quality of the human environment 4
--- m,** --C:ll*JJ -- W ! :=,
- License renewal is considered a major federal
- ~
v action Qag.
9 to NEPA Process NEPA Process (continued)
(continued)
Notice ofIntent - notifies public of
- Review - evaluates environmental impacts, preparation of EIS alternatives, & mitigation measures Scoping Process - identifies scope of EIS
- Issue draft EIS for public comment and solicits public input
> Public Meeting
> Public Meeting
> Public Comment Period
> Public Comment Period
- Issue final EIS g
3 Environmental License Renewal Regulatory Background
[m Process
-~
\\
Environmental License Renewal Review Process wcs N
i t
- Regulations l
g;;
> 10 CFR Part 51 Q gu,,
_ Tr."'
_ gg
> Generic Environmentalimpact Statement (GEIS) s., j-s.o.
u.
_~ -
~
- Regulatory Guidance d.i
> Environmental Standard Review Plan for License 1"MS m-Renewal O:r.r 13 14 Generic Environmental impact Standard of Significance Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants (GEIS, NUREG-1437)
Council on Environmental Quality definition
- sMALL: Effect not detectable or too small to
- To improse efficiency oflicense renewal process destabilize or noticeably alter any important attribute of I
n the resource
[
j
- Identified 92 issues of potential consequence (U/
- MODERATE: Effect sufficient to alter noticeably but i
- For each issue, approach consisted of:
not to destabilize important attributes of the resource
> Describing activity
> identifying population or resource affected
- LARGE: Effect is clearly noticeable and sufficient to
> Assessing nature and rnagnitude ofimpact destabilize important attributes of the resource
(
> Characterizing significance of the effect j
> Considering whether cdditional mitigation is warranted 15 16 Category 1 Issues Category 2 Issues 68 issues meet these criteria Impacts apply to all plants or to plants with 22 of the categorized issues did not i
specific plant or site characteristics meet one or more of Category 1 criteria Single-significance level applies (SMALL, MODERATE, LARGE)
Plant-specific review required Additional plant-specific mitigation measures not likely to be sufficiently beneficial to be warranted
>v, 17 18
Issues Considered in SEIS Addit.ional Issues Two issues were not categorized
~ 7'" l ' ' M '? _m
,, ' ~ ~
Z k~
r
> Env.ronmental justice i
> Chronic effects of electromagnetic fields Review process to identify whether there is
/
"~~
any significant new information
' ' ses 20 cm 19 g weeni.*e-48.*-*-w em.-+-.'4W'*="'
-.--me-.*
i..-.
.--e-
-+--M*""-*-'
="'
Calvert Cliffs' SEIS Limited Scope of the SEIS n-
~.
Issues not considered in the SEIS:
Supplement to GEIS Need for power Plant-specific environmental effects Cost of power during the renewal term Safety Category 1 issues Category 2 issues Spent fuel disposal (except for Not categorized s
> New issues transportation) 22 21 f
l i
SEIS Information SEIS Information Gathering Process Gathering Process (continued)
Reviewed BGE's application
- Visited county, regional, and State govemment.
environmental and resource regulators Received input through public scoping process
- Visited information sen' ice agencies
> All comments considered f
> Comments not bearing on license renewal
- Verified environmental permits and l
decision referred to appropriate NRC programs requirements for continuing operations
)
Visited site and reviewed BGE's process for
- Discussed consequences during renewal term identifying new information with regulating agencies 2#
23
____m_
4 Treatment of Category 1 Issues Category 1 Issues (68)
-
- Staffevaluated CCNPP site to determine whether Not applicable to site (11): issues identified in or not there was any new and significant Appendix F of the SEIS information regarding Category 1 issues available Related to refurbishment (9): issues identified in for that site Chapter 3
> All Category 1 issues evaluated Remaining (48) reviewed for new and significant information: issues identified in Chapters 4 - 7
> Where there was no sigruficant new mformation revealed, the staff embraced the conclusions of
> BGE's Environmental Report the GEIS
> Public Scoping Meeting
> Consultations with regulators and technical expens 25 26 m
me a-en.
---eem.meam-Category 2 Issues (22)
AdditionalIssues
- Not applicable to site (5): issues identified in Appendix F of I
the SEls Not categorized
- Related to refurbishment (4): issues identified in Chapter 3
> Environmentaljustice p Remaining (13) issues underwent independent resiew and t
j
> Chronic exposure to electromagnetic fields i
(j are specifically addressed: issues identified in Chapters 4 -7 ew issue
> Considered mitigation measures for each Category 2 issue. if necessan
~
> Microorganisms in high-radiation, high-
- Identified significance of each issue as SMALL-temperature environments MODERATE. or LARGE 27 28 j
Contents of CCNPP SEIS Environmental Impacts of License Renewal Document organization and preh..mmarv analysis
- Chapter 1: Introduction Chapter 3: Refurbishment
- Chapter 2 Chapter 4: Operation during the renewal term
> Land Use
> Water use and quality
> Category 1 issues
> Air quality
> Aquatic resources
> Category 2 issues and specific issues that could not
> Terrestrial re>ources be reviewed generically
[
)' > Radiologicalimpacts to surrounding area
(
> Socioeconomic factors
> New issues raised by BGE, public, or staff V
> Historic and archaeological resources 29 30
Preliminary Results of Analysis Preliminary Results of Analysis
-_.._ ~ _ _ _ _, _
Category 2 Issues Category 1 Issues Aquatic ecolour
- No significant new environmental
> Entrainment of fish and shellfish in early life stages information was identified for these issues
> Impingement of fish and shellfish
> Heat shock
- Staff embraces the conclusions of the Threatened or endangered species GEIS FWS has RECO. f NfENDED mitigation measures for
\\
certain species 31 32 v
- t
.e-e..
er w.
ww.e
.,.w.ge.%.
Preliminary Results of Analysis Preliminary Results of Analysis (continued)
(confinued)
Category 2 Issues Category 2 Issues socioeconomics Groundwater use conflicts
> Housing impacts
> Public utilities
- Iluman health: Electric shock
> Public transportation
> Offsite land use
> Historic and archaeological resources 34 33 Preliminary Results of Analysis Preliminary Results of Analysis (continued)
(continued)
Not Categorized New and Significant Information
- Organisms existing under high-radiation, high-
- Environmentaljustice temperature conditions
- Human health: Chronic effects of
> Little potential for detrimental population increase in envimnment electromagnetic fields
> Would not have deleterious efTect on public health
{
> Determined that this did not meet significant new inf nnat n standard 36 35
-s
1 p Preliminary Results of Analysis Preliminary Results of Analysis i
(continued)
(continued)
-=~
.=,.e
_ _ ~ _-.-
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Chapter 6: Uranium Fuel Cycle and Solid
- Chapter 5: Postulated Plant Accidents Waste Management
> Design basis accidents
> Transportation of radiological waste
> Severe accidents 10 CFR 51.52(c), Table S-4 Chapter 7: Decommissioning
> No Category 2 issues 37 38 SunlHlary ofIn1 pacts of Operation Environmental Significance of During Renewal Terni License Renewal Psepened Peepened
- No significant new information identified reae=
Acaea impa.1 Csepft Lease imput Canepry tuense Impacts f r Category 1 issues bounded by analysis in
/ 3
- GEIS L=dta SMeu.
Human Health Suu
(
1 c.,
swa socoonomo sue
- Impacts for Category 2 issues of SN1ALL significance u ma o==v - ssue sue w.c.
suu and would REQUIRE no additional mitigation www.id as.mo suu
% ater Qualev -
swE Resources
- FWS RECON 1N1 ENDED imp!ementation of Envuonmental Jusace sMALL mitigation for certain species um sun _
39 40 Unavoidable Adverse Impacts of License Irreversible or Irretrievable Renewal Resource Commitments Materials and equipment required to
- Continued drawdown of water at offsite maintain operations wells 1
Continued loss of fish and shellfish Permanent storage space for spent fuel (N
- Housing and traffic impact from addition assemblies
(
of about 60 employees 41 42 J
m Short-Term Use vse Preliminary Results of Analysis (continued)
Long-Term Productivity
,___2_
Chapter 8: Alternatives to License Renewal Current environmental balance well Limited to those " eminently reasonable of demonstrated capability and with sufficient generating capacity to replace established plant pow er generation" Renewal would delay alternative site use Includes "No-Action" alternatis e Coal-fired power generation
. Gas-fired power generation 44 43 Environmental Significance of Endronmental Significance of License Renewal (continued)
Lice.ise Renewal (continued)
Pasposed
%Accen No Acnen Actmen Alternamve Ceal-Fired Genersnan No-As nen impact Caepwv bressae Demal ef CCNPP Greenfwid Rnarw al Renemal kw km Irrqsatt Cmersv Densal ef impact Cseprv Dermal ef Land Use SMALL SMALL SMALL MODERATE mLARG Land Use SMALL ifurnan Heanh S\\t ALL Ecotop SMAL L hxsoeconous SMALL u, Ecolop SMALL SMALL SMALL MODERATE u awr Quabrv - Surive SMALL u ser Quin - Surface SMALL SMALL SMALL SMAll e Arsthetn SMALL MODERATE m ater
%ma H mer Quaiery -
SMALL 4cheomyca, and Hamncal SMALL e
%'ver Quale -
SMALL SMALL LARG 5 MALL e i
Gmunhaier Remurces LAgg LARG Groundwater Aa Quatty SMALL Emronmental Jusace SMALL e A'r Quain SMAll SMALL MODERATE MODERATE MODERATE f
H aste SMALL W aste SMAll SMAll MODERATE MODERATE j
45 46 i
i l
Environmental Significance of Environmental Significance of License Renewal (continued)
License Renewal (continued)
Proposed 4Arten Papowd No.Arteen Arsen Ahemseve Cas-Fired Generseen Aenen Alternmesve Coal-Fired Genersnen import Caepry beenne Demal et CCSPP Greenrwid impact Caepry bcense Dermal ef CC%PP Green 6eid Renewai Raneoal her Ew Renewal Renreal Ste bee Human Health SMAll SMALL SMALL SM411 Led Use SMALL SMAll SMALL SMALL e MODLRATE Socioecononsca SMALL
$4ALL eo MODEP.AT E MODERATE LARGE Ecoce SMALL SMAll SMALL SMALL e I
i J
Assdweiss SMALL SMALL MODERAT E MODERATE I
mLARGE mLARGE
% arer Qualm - Surface SMALL SMALL SMALL
$ MALL m W DE W E uan Archeosopcal and SMALL SMA1.L m SMAll SMALL bNal Re='c'5 LARGE u aser Quaim -
SMALL SMALL SMAll SMALL Cd*""*"
Enviemunemal Jwnce 5% TALL SMALL e MODEILATE SM4LL to WDERATF LARG As Ouakts SMALL SMALL MODLRATE MODEILATE
% asta 14411 SMALL SMALL SL l
l l
L.
Environmental Significance of prelinlinary Results of Analysis
[
License Renewal (continued) g (continued)
Popewd
%e. Accen 4.
4,uma,,,e ca,e. c_.
Chapter 5: Postulated Plant Accidents impact carepe tuense Demal of CONPP Genearwid Reneesi Renn.al hee kw
- Design Basis Accidents Human Healih sM4LL sMEL sM4LL sM4t sacemonomics sMALL sM4LL e s%ALL sMEL Severe Accidents wneno sMu sstu sM4Lt u.
sMute MoDOLAT E MoDut4TE
> Severe Accident Mitigation Alternatives ww.a.,. H, ma sMu sM u.
sMu sMu (SAMAs)
Envuonmmta! Asoce Sv 41 L sM4LL e sMALL e
- sM4LLn, MoDFR.4T E MoDUL4TE MODER 4TE 49 50 Evaluation Approach Evaluation of Severe Accident Mitigation Alternatives (SAMAS)
- Characterize os crall plant risk and lead contributors to risk
- Identfy design improvanents that can further reduce risk
)
Purpose of Evaluation:
. ouantify risk reduction potential and casts for each improvemera O
+ Determine whether or not implementation ofimprovement is To ensure that plant changes (design or justiried procedural) with the potential for
, significant reduction in iotai risk improving severe accident safety performance are identified and evaluated u Famable value/impactratio
> Risk reduction is associated with aging effects during period of extended operation si 52 Results of SAMA Evaluation Results of SAMA Evaluation
- one impros ement to plant hardware selected for implementation at CCNPP o Reduces the risk from internal flooding esents
> Will be pursued under BGE's current corrective action program
- Overall
Conclusion:
- Threc additional enhancanents judged to be cost beneficial under current NRC regulatorv analysis gmdelines, but do not relate to Additional plant improvements to further manapng the effects of aging mitigate severe accidents are not required at N RC intends to further evaluse the need for these enhancemerts CCNPP as part oflicense renewal pursuant in the context of continued operation under the current operaung to 10 CFR Part 54 license
- All remaining enhancenents have either a s erv small or negative net s alue, or offer only minm.al risk reduction'
Staff Preliminary Conclusions Environmental Findings from and Recommendations License Renewal Review Based on
- Supplement I to the GEIS (NUREG-1437)
> The analys.is and findings of the Gels contains NRC stairs preliminary conclusions regarding the environmental The ER submitted bv BGE acceptability of the license renewal action
> Consultations with local, State and Federal agenaes
- Overall license renewal decision based on safety and environmental review
> Independent review. including results of scoping process 56 55 Staff's Overall Preliminary Conclusions and Public Comments Recommendations Comment period ends on May 20,1999 The adverse environmental impacts of license renewal for CCNPP Units 1 and 2
> 75 day comment period are not so great that preserving the option Comments not bearing on decision to oflicense renewal for energy planning renew h,eense w,ll be referred to i
decision makers would be unreasonable.
appropriate NRC programs.
57 58 m--
-a e -- -+.
iwe easm-
-.ee.me Calvert Cliffs License Renewal Point of Contact Environmental Review Milestones Agency point ofcontact:
- Application received - 4/98
- Notice ofIntent - 688 Thomas J. Kenyon 1(800)368-4542 Scoping Meeting - 7/98 Documents located at Pub'ac Document Room M
and Local Public Document Room
- Draft supplement to GEIS - 3/99 Provide comments: by mail, in person, or e-mail
- Comment period - 3/99-5/99 at cceisWnrc. gov
~
Final Supplement to GEIS - 11/99 60 59
Caltimore Gas & Electric Set:m:nt et th2 Unit:d St:t:s Nuclear Regultt:ry Commission Public Comment Meetings on the Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for the
[-)
Calven Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant U
Good afternoon / evening. My name is Banh W. Doroshuk and I am the Director of the Life Cycle Management Project at the Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant (Calven Cliffs). I am representing l
the Baltimore Gas & Electric Company (BGE) at these United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission (USNRC) meetings. The purpose of this meeting is for the NRC to offer the public I
another opportunity to participate in the re licensing process of Calvert Cliffs. As we have heard, this particular opponunity in the process is to provide NRC with any comments on this document, J
the plant specific supplement to the Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal 1
of Nuclear Power Plants. On behalf of BGE and the Calven Cliffs family of approximately two thousand men and women who work at the plant,let me express my thanks for the opportunity to make a statement regarding the emironmentalimpact oflicense renewal for Calven Cliffs.
Today I would like to discuss two subjects with you, and then I will yield my remaining time to the other speaker for BGE.
First, I would like to discuss the openness of the overall re-licensing process and in particular that of Calvert Cliffs. The second subjec' I will discuss is the findings of the USNRC regarding the environmental effects of re-licenciag. Finally, I have arranged for Calvert Cliffs to make a few statements on behalf ofitself relative to the surrounding emironment and its role in Maryland, and as a pan of the BGE family.
There has been some interest in the public process of the re-licensing of nuclear power plants. Let (g
me briefly describe how open the environmental review has been, how many opportunities there bj have been for public input.
I want to do this by looking at the openness of the overall regulatory process and how open our minds have been about listening to everyone. Then I want to look at how open our " door" has been to everyone and tell about some of those who have taken advantage ofit. And finally I willlet you know about our ongoing open invitation to address your ideas, questions and suggestions.
Before our application, the NRC conducted a five-year public proceeding to prepare the Generic Environmental Impact Statement on license renewal. This proceeding included public workshops, several opportunities to submit written comments on the draft generic environmental impact statement, and a formal rulemakmg.
Then, in our proceeding, the NRC staff has conducted scoping meetings and prepared a draft supplement looking at the site-specific impacts of renewing Calvert Cliffs licenses. The NRC staff has looked et all the issues that were generically resolved in the GEIS and determined that they remain valid tbr Calvert Cliffs. In addition, the staff has looked at the issues that were not resolved in the GEIS and found that any impacts associated with these issues are small. The public now has not only the oppenunity to express its views today, but also the opportunity to submit written comments on the
- ft SEIS.
In July oflast year, many of us met in this same location to express our opinions and submit our comments about the scope of the emironmental assessment that would occur as part of the review of BGE's license renewal application.
V Banh W. Doroshuk Page 1 04/06/99 Baltimore Gas & Electric
Caltim:re Gas & El:ctric St:t m:nt et the Unit;d Stit:s Nuclear R:gul:ttry Commission Public Comment M:ctings on the Draft Supplemental Environrnental Impact Statement for the Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant O
This process has been much more than writing letters. The NRC listened to our ideas and suggestions. They have even enlisted the assistance of a nationallaboratory to help them review all of the information. As a result of comments made last July, the scope of the review was expanded.
Ix>oking closer to home at this issue, since 1993, BGE has held in excess of 60 public meetings with the NRC (no fewer than 14 public meeting in the last 12 months) on the topic oflicense renewal, f
and has submitted on the public record literally hundreds of documents detailing our efforts.
i f
Apart from the license renewal process, Calvert Cliffs has a visitor's center open seven days a week.
The Calvert Cliffs family hosts, on average,3000 people per month who come to visit us. These visits allow for learning by our visitors and listening by BGE.
In addition, there is an open invitation for visitors to request a tour of the actual plant -inside the fence, inside the buildings. Every year BGE conducts somewhere between 100 to 150 tours of Calvert Cliffs by our visitors without hesitation.
If anyone has a safety concern or any information anytime that indicates the environment is being disturbed there is virtually an unhmited number of avenues to get that information to BGE, the NRC, the State of Maryland or whoever the right people are. You can even dial a toll-free number if need be, or you can e-mail us, or you can simply stop by. I think the process has offered all an enormous amount of opportunity to participate.
Those of you who were here last July heard me discuss the conclusions of BGE's own em'ironmental review and some of the facts surrounding our decision to submit our applications, some of the facts supporting our conclusion that it makes good sense to continue to operate the l
plant.
After all the scientific studies we have conducted and after taking into account all of the considerations and alternative actions, BGE continues to believe that it makes good sense to maintain the equilibrium established between the plant, the air, the Bay and the land.
I would draw everyone's attention to Table 9-1, on page 9-6. I believe that table says it all. It summarizes and compares the environmental impacts of Calvert Cliffs' license renewal and the alternatives. It reports that the environmentalimpact oflicense renewalis recognized as smallin all impact categories. Smallis defmed as " environmental effects are not detectable or are so minor that they will neither destabilize nor noticeably alter any important attribute of the resource." In simple terms, this means there are no environmentalimpacts from license renewal on Calvert Cliffs.
Indeed, the land, the water, and the air are clean around here.
Each of the altematives evaluated within the SEIS has been determined to have more significant impact than license renewal in one or more impact category. The document evaluated the no-action alternative, and coal-fired and gas-fired power replacements. Ixt me briefly discuss some of the altematives that did not make the final assessment and the reasons why.
Many of us in this room live here in Calvert County. This county has 213 square miles of land l
space. Calvert Cliffs, a 1700-megawatt power plant which generates on average approximately 13 Barth W. Doroshuk Page 2 04/06/99 Baltimore Gas & Elecmc l
Caltimore Gas & El ctric Sert: ment et th; Unit:d St:t:s Nuclear Regulttsry Conunission Public Comment Meetings on the Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for the t
Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant billion kilowatt-hours of electricity, occupies only 280 acres at the Calvert Cliffs site. A 2000-acre green-space buffer, the remainder of the Calvert Cliffs site, surrounds the plant. To replace Calvert Cliffs' electrical generation with wind-driven turbines or windnulls, we would need to cover 255 thousand acres, or 400 square miles, almost twice the land area of Calvert County. If we look at solar and consider the average solar incidence in Maryland, solar power would require two to three times the land area of the wind power option -- over 1000 square miles. Hydropower replacement would require a 2600 square mile area of reservoir-covered land to generate the power of Calvert Cliffs. In the eastern United States, we simply don't have the land area to consider the wind, solar, or 1:ydro alternatives.
I The envianment around us is a complex one, and we believe change should be carefully
)
considered. After all the scientific studies and considerations that go into alternative actions, BGE
{
feels that it makes good sense to maintain the equilibrium established between the plant, the air, the Bay and the land.
I believe the consistent conclusion from all of the environmental reviews, assessments, and evaluations is compelling. The continued operation of Calvert Cliffs beyond the original licensed periods will provide the people of Maryland with a safe and reliable source of energy. The continued operation of Calven Cliffs will continue to be a contributor to the environment by striking that careful balance between clean air and a stable energy supply. The continued operation of Calvert Cliffs will continue to provide economic stability to Maryland and BGE.
V We have spent the last two and one-half hours talking about something that is not in the room. So in this part of my remarks I would like to show you a shon video of Calvert Cliffs and allow the plant to tell of its role in our way of life here in Maryland. We realize, and want to say up front, that no film ever escapes a critic! So let me say up front that Speilbergs we are not, nor do we pretend to be! I believe this short clip shows the essence of the great relationship Calvert Cliffs has with our community. I believe I willlet Calven Cliffs speak for itself.
We at BGE and Calvert Cliffs take pride in our position as a good neighbor in this community. We believe that this is widely recognized. The value of Calvert Cliffs is plain and simple. The value of the environment is also obvious to us all.
The video encourages people to speak out. To all that have offered rational input to this process, I thank you for taking part. Speaking for all the employees and management at Cah*ert Cliffs, I would like to graciously thank everyone who demonstrated their support of our initiative.
BGE believes it just makes sense to continue to preserve the safe, reliable and environmentally sound technology that Calvert Cliffs offers us.
Thank you.
Banh W. Doroshuk Page 3 04/06/99 Baltimore Gas & Electric
Third Draft: 5/28/98 revised final
!V CALVERT CLIFFS:
A BEACONOFENERGY A CREATIVE VIDEO SCRIPT FOR BALTIMORE GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY September 25,1998 Reminders: Visuals precede spoken words.
All visuals and music elements are suggestions only.
All narration is voice-over.
NOTE: In whatfollows, all shots marked with (A) below should be readily available
)
from BGE video library archives orfrom other existing sources.
s Video Audio FADE UP (MUSIC /SFX: Gentle acoustic guitar music, bluegrass or folk style, mixed with the natural sounds of the sea.)
Waves lap the rocky Atlantic coastline as we glide forward. Somehow the lighting suggests early evening, and we can almost smell the freshness of the salty breeze.
l A lone figure in the distance is moving toward something just up from the shoreline. Closer shots reveal a man, dressed simply in modern-day denim and flannel and good workman's shoes. Clean-shaven and 40 or above, he strolls calmly toward a lighthouse.
We cannot identify him.
(Option to shoot actuallighthouse-Cove Point Lighthouse on Chesapeake Bay.)
Scripts Unlimited, Inc.
- 1of12 Calvert Cliffs: A Beacon ofEnergy
- M:-ME0E40 DOC Video Script
Third Draft: 5/28/98 revised final
-j (NARRATOR, V/O:) Consider the lighthouse.
It's a simple idea.
If possible, we show the man entering the building; [ edit to] arriving at the top, and settling in. His facial features remain dim or out of frame.
Based on a sturdy tower, a large window, and a steady source oflight.
His hands begin to flip switches. We see a big Navy ring. (Or: stock footage of other lighthouses.)
It reminds us how, for centuries, the protection of others has often rested upon something as safe and reliable..
Transition to stock footage of a lighthouse beam sweeping through the night. Slow it down for enhanced effect.
. as a beacon oflight.
s (SFX: There's a kind of voice to the beacon, a throaty and reassuring hum that crescendos during the sweep.)
The beam languidly sweeps over us.
Transition to an aenal night skyscape of Baltimore, an arcing and elegant shot. Among the skyscrapers, layer in night scenes of marquee lights and traffic.
(SFX: Mixed under, the dynamic sounds of. urban nightlife.)
)
(NARRATOR:) Today, the kind of energy we harness can be much more complex.
Scripts Unlimited, Inc.
+ 2 of 12 +
Calvert Chffs: A Beacon ofEnerg Video Script M:-ME0E40. doc
Third DraR: 5/28/98 revised final Transithn to an early morning shot,
\\,
bayside, aerial. We swoop in over water.
(NARRATOR:) Yet here, the bay is tranquil...just as the idea behind harnessing energy is simple.
We come upon the rounded towers behind the bay.
This is the Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant.
Think ofit as..
A circle wipe creates a swift " moving beam" effect via highlight and subdue.
A Beacon of Energy.
Titles appear overit.
(MUSIC: By now, other musical instruments have joined the guitar and the rich sound comes up full.)
Baltimore Gas and Electric Company presents...
Calvert Cliffs:
A Beacon of Energy (MUSIC: Somewhat faster now.)
Interior, a home in the area. Lit for early moming. A digital alarm clock display changes to 6.00 a.m. and starts to buzz.
Time has proven nuclear energy to be safe and reliable.
Key words on screen in large translucent text:
safe 1
reliable (SFX: Alarm clock buzz, muffled under the soothing music.)
Transition to interior shot, Calvert Cliffs, showing mammoth control panel -
(A).
1 Since 1975, the people of Central and Southern Maryland have experienced the value of Calvert Cliffs.
(
}\\
Scripts Unlimited, Inc.
+ 3 of 12 +
Calvert Chffs: A Beacon ofEnergy M:-ME0E40. DOC Video Script
Third Draft: 5/28/98 revised final Transition to interior shot, Calvert Cliffs, featuring massive turbines (A).
Option to surround the central part of the image with edge pix layered on showing energy use. These might include a designer lamp from an office setting, a hand-held hair dryer in a teen girl's hand, a toddler at a plug-in toy keyboard, and a high-speed Pepsi bottling machine or web press from the Baltimore Sun. (A)
Light, heat, music, industrial muscle..
Let the high-speed machine shot engulf the screen. (A) Subdue 40% of it, with CG over:
40%
. 40% ofit has come from here.
Fly over it in diagonal fashion the key word, again large and translucent:
energy Animate or step-animate a red arrow ratcheting down over a scenic Maryland background. A headline appears with words to this effect:
BGE announces 11th consecutive fuel rate decrease Also, in the upper-right corner, as spoken, we see the words:
lower rates Calven Cliffs has brought us lower rates.
Need a generic figure to show over a shot of many c.rowded people in a downtown Baltimore scene. CG over:
billions With a combined cost savings.. over the lifetime of the plant.. in the billions.
Archive shot from BGE emphasizing a technical or engineering staffer at work. (A)
There is value, not only in the energy itself, but also in the technology behind it.
- 4 of 12 Calvert Clyfs: A Beacon ofEnergy m*
Scripts Unlimited, Inc.
Video Script u;~ucoc<oooc
1 Third Draft: 5/28/98 revised final n
(
)
et exterior. Transition to lush
\\j farming shot, angled to ernphasize some verdant acres. (A)
Consider the many kinds of value from Calvert Cliffs.
Owls, deer, osprey, or bald eagle shot #1. (A) Key work onscreen:
friendly First, like the lighthouse, it is friendly to the neighboring environment. Of the 23-hundred acre property, less than 20% belongs to the plant site.
A tractor makes its circuit. (A)
)*
Nearly 130 acres are farmlands.
Marsh shot. Woodlands shot.
A birdling or beastie peers furtively from the brush. (A)
The rest is marsh... and woodlands. In fact, the site has been called "the last relatively pristine cliff ecosystem g
left.. on Chesapeake Bay."
(
Tiger beetle beauty shot. (A)
'~'
It supports about 90% of the world population of the rare " puritan tiger beetle."
BGE people setting up nest boxes and perches or otherwise tending the wilderness. (A)
BGE people have helped. And in so doing, have won praise '.' rom the Wildlife Habitat Council...
Bald eagle winging overhead. (A)
. and The Nature Conservancy..
(
\\
/
Scripts Unlimited, Inc.
+ 5 of 12 ;
Calvert Cliffs: A Beacon ofEnergy M:-ME0E40. DOC Video 8Cript
?
Third Draft: 5/28/98 revised final Hikers or walkers on a nature ircil at s.
Calvert Cliffs. (Preferably, someone has a staff. Option for opening shot to favor feet climbing or walking, for a light play on the word " afoot" in narration. Then open up the shot to emphasize the people and close on their friendly expressions.)(A)
The air is fresh here. And, there's a new trend afoot.
Today, more people who fear global warming... favor nuclear energy.
(MUSIC: Major transition here.)
Major visual transition. Return to lighthouse exterior.
The lighthouse brought a steady living.
Inside, the hands are now using a humble polishing cloth to shine up some metal, glass, or wood.
. to those who faithfully tended it.
Montage. Calvert Cliffs people at work, with figures over the blend. (A)
So too, Calvert Cliffs has created thousands ofjobs.
and meant hundreds of millions to the local economy.
As the largest private employer in southern Maryland, Calvert Cliffs represents more tlian $79 million in annual salaries and pays over $20 million each year in local taxes.
Archive shot in motion of ethnic husband / wife, mature (t nr.ior) citizens enjoying an active lifestyle (perhaps golf or tennis course). (A) sense of the size and scope of the complex. (A)
Scripts Unlimited, Inc.
- 6 of 12 ;
Calvert Chfh: A Beacon ofEnergy Video SC ly' M:-M E0040 IXX'
1 Third Draft: 5/28/98 revised final
/O More of the same. Option to add on Q
dollar sign icons, sized to represent the 8-fold-plus difference.
Clearly, the plant transcends its role as a generator of electricity; Calvert Cliffs adds value to the quality of life in Maryland.
Archive pix from history files; blended still or motion footage of Calvert Cliffs under construction.
Show dry storage facilities. Add other pix to match.
Safety continues to be a priority. BGE has long held to a maintenance standard that far exceeds industry dorms.
For both equipment and systems, we have aggressively rebuilt, restored, refurbished, and replaced.
New angte, steam generator.
For example, BGE has already announced plans to replace both steam generators, to ensure reliability. This effort alone means a commitment of $300 million over the next five years.
A different scene to suggest size / scope of facility.
Today, the future of this plant is under review.
Key worc' on screen (CG):
volve Aerial of Washington DC's " monument i
alley," leading 'o the Capitol. (A) CG over.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission
' (show NRC symbol as well)
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission requires
]
relicensing of any nuclear power plant after the first 40 years of service.
~
(
Scripts Unlimited, Inc.
- 7 of 12 +. Calvert Chffs: A Beacon ofEnergy M:~ME0E40p Video Script
Third Draft: 5/28/98 revised final BGE staffers collating reams of paper into reports. Add generic pix to match.
And although our deadline is technically years in the future, we have already started meeting it now. It's a pioneering move. BGE is the first in the nation to request a licence extension.
Mid-level staff meeting on the project, with many notebooks and resources on the conference table.
The commitment required is immense. With an application cost alone approaching $15 million dollars.
Generic pix to match. (Possibly a shot of staffers unloading the application. If so, make sure we see doc cover or add CG to explain what's going on.)
Even so, we can assume nothing. Because relicensing is more than a goal. It's aprocess. With significant opportunities for the public to voice an opinion. And with the NRC making the final decision.
Baltimore citizens at work and play.
In short, while Calvert Cliffs serves the community, the community also needs to give at least moral support to this effort.. since the outcome is by no means guaranteed.
2y word on screen:
future l
l l
l
~
Scripts Unlimited, Inc.
.* 8 of 12 ;
Calvert Clyjs: A Beacon of Energy M -MEDE40. doc l' ideo Script l
l E
Third Draft: 5/28/98 revised final Return to exterior oflighthouse at work.
After all... what if the light... went out?
Retum to earlier" throaty hum" scene j
1 and recra't it to suggest the lighthouse beam going out and its warm voice dying away.
Dip to black.
j Nuclear engineer (man). Public relations staff member (woman).
For now, Calvert Cliffs means stability. Security.
l Montage with exteriors oflocal hospital, school, Mail center. (A) Or:
Blended diversity shots with many
{
faces. (A) Either way, wrap around it with the border of Marylard.
j It's a resource worthy of preserving not only for the stakeholders involved, but also for the entire state of Maryland.
Chris Poindexter and other top
,("
executives around a conference table, planning. (A)
BGE is taking strategic actions to be a good corporate citizen. And to act on this urgent need.
Shot from a meeting involving public response. (Or, pix to match.)
We ask nothing of you but your voice.
A person favoring Calvert Cliffs steps to the microphone and begins to speak. (Or, pix to match.)
If you care about a positive outcome, let it be heard.
(S.O.T. - We hear a few words from the citizen-enough to sense support of Calvert Cliffs-prior to the crossfade.)
Daytime aerial ove. Calvert Cliffs.
Our message is simple.
Scripts Unlimited, Inc.
+ 9 of 12 +
Calvert Chffs: A Beacon ofEnergy Video Script M.-MEDE40. doc l
L:
Third Draft:.5/28/98 Inised final Blend visuals seen earlier with key v
words floating over as spoken, especially: alarm clock, high-speed machine, eagle, working people, senior couple, child at toy keyboard.
CG:
safe reliable energy j
friendly value future Based on a safe and reliable source of energy.. one that's proven itself friendly to the environment as well as to customers... Calvert Cliffs nuclear power plant has brought us all considerable value. And will continue to do so in the future.
Return to the lighthouse scenes from I
the opening.
1 (MUSIC: Slow again. We gradually lose instruments, until only the guitar line remains.)
e l
(NARRATOR:) The lighthouse brought a message of l
security, and yet...
Match dissolve from a wide-angle, l
upward shot of the lighthouse to a wide-angle, upward shot of one of the nuclear towers et BGE.
.. we cannot take this resource for granted. Together we must make a commitment to preserve the irivestment.
Preserve the technology. Preserve the value. Preserve f
thejobs. And preserve the tradition..
Now, it is not the twilight after sunset, j
but the twilight before sunrise. We see the same male worker as in the open.
This time, he steps from the bay l
shoreline up a grassy knoll to l
approach-not the lighthouse-but instead, Calvert Cliffs.
Scripts Unlimited. Inc.
+ 10 of 12 +
Calvert rii((s: A Beacon ofEnergy M -MEDE40. doc Video Script
)
L
Third Draft: 5/28/98 revised final n[
T The camera tracks up from benind
\\.v/
him, and then somehow gets ahead of him, and looks back.
.. that we know today as Calvert Cliffs.
We sea f*? face now. The man is Chris Poindexter.
He smiles in a craggy sort of way, and we get the feeling of a steady hand at the helm.
Think ofit as..
Then, from a daylight aerial now filtered day-for-night to resemble a night scene, the image freezes and a
" beacon" effect sweeps in a clockwise motion from the two towers, lighthouse-fashion.
i A Beacon of Energy.
Transition to the Atlantic ocean, reliably and safely sending waves upon the shore.
,y (SFX: Sea gulls.)
(
)
Fly on BGE bug logo.
C/
Add copyright information.
)
(MUSIC: Crescendo.)
Fade to black.
((ESTIMATED TRT: 7:10 at 45 seconds per page for 9.5 pages. We factored out page breaks.))
I I
l
/ %
J Scripts Unlimited, Inc.
411 of12 +
Calvert Chffs: A Beacon ofEnergy u ~ucocao voc Video Script e
,.e
.4 Third Draft: 5/28/98 revised final
~
PRODUCTION NOTES a
- 1. Although all the key words show here in the identical font as other CG, such as " lower rates," I suggest you give the key words their own unique look and feel in your choice of CG font, to enhance visual continuity.
- 2. I left the term " puritan tiger beetle" offscreen deliberately, since we already have viewers reading a lot of text. If this causes curiosity among them, so much the better.
- 3. I think the "x" in NOx is subscript; please confirm.
- 4. On page 7,I chose to omit the number of years in the future the deadline is [16 to 17],
since I was concerned that it might undermine the viewers' sense of urgency about making their positive comments known. It also allows the speaker to fill in that gap, and protects the shelflife of your program.
- 5. Anywhere you wish to cut back, feel free. My vision is for this show to be tightly paced and not overly encumbered with details that might detract from the key message.
- 6. On page 8, I chose nc4 to put the number of $300 million in CG. It's big enough to be memorable, and has already been published in various places.
- 7. Same page, I hope the "we can assume nothing" line is acceptable. Let viewers feel that they're needed.
- 8. Feel free to call, any time. I'll be happy to tweak where needed tr, help you make it great!
I'm out tomorrow afternoon, but should be easy to find Friday and Monday. Good luck!
~
E.P %
Scripts Unlimited, Inc.
- 12 of 12
- Calvert Clifjs: A Beacon ofEnergy Video Script MnMLorAD doc J